Make America Fit Again: CrossFit’s Articulation with Authoritarian Populism 9819963109, 9789819963102

Citation preview

Make America Fit Again CrossFit’s Articulation with Authoritarian Populism

Shaun E. Edmonds

Make America Fit Again

Shaun E. Edmonds

Make America Fit Again CrossFit’s Articulation with Authoritarian Populism

Shaun E. Edmonds Augustana College Rock Island, IL, USA

ISBN 978-981-99-6310-2 ISBN 978-981-99-6311-9 (eBook) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-6311-9 © The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2023 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors, and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. Cover illustration: © Melisa Hasan This Palgrave Macmillan imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. The registered company address is: 152 Beach Road, #21-01/04 Gateway East, Singapore 189721, Singapore Paper in this product is recyclable.

Acknowledgments

This book has been a long time coming. I began work on this project in 2016 as part of my dissertation on CrossFit. Since the project’s inception, both CrossFit and I have gone through many changes. As such, I would like to acknowledge the many people who have contributed to the development of this book. First and foremost, I would like to thank my dissertation advisor, David L. Andrews, and my dissertation committee; Shannon Jette, Leslie Heywood, Katie King, and Adam Beissel. Without their feedback, criticism, and support, this project would never have reached completion. I would also like to thank the Physical Cultural Studies (PCS) graduate student group and alumni, including Samuel Clevenger, Bryan Clift, Stephanie J. Cork, Katelyn Esmonde, Julie Maier, Anna Posbergh, Oliver Rick, Eric A. Stone, Tori Justin, and Brandon Wallace. Special acknowledgment should be made for PCS honorary members, and good friends, Jo Zimmerman, Theresa Hauge, and Maria Henninger-Ayoub. My formative years at the University of Maryland were transformative, and you all have pushed me to be a better scholar, teacher, and person. Outside of the University of Maryland, there are many people who need thanks for their support and insight. This project would not be as nuanced without the support of fellow CrossFit academics Nancy L. Malcom, Christina Gipson, and Hannah Bennett, as well as the generous and friendly members of my CrossFit box. Furthermore, I would like to

v

vi

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

thank the staff and owners of The Board and Brew in Maryland and Milltown Coffee in Illinois for their space, coffee, and encouragement. Lastly, thanks to Braedon Lambros for their support, feedback, and patience as I talked incessantly about the project. As I navigated the publishing process, I would like to thank my reviewers who provided critical and important feedback to the arguments and positions put forward within these pages, as well as the editorial team at Palgrave for their patience as I slowly worked through the manuscript revisions. Finally, I would like to thank my mother, Marian Edmonds, for her unconditional love and support. Without you none of this would have happened. I’m sorry for working while I visit over the holidays! There are many who have supported me along the way, so I apologies to any that I may have missed!

Contents

Introduction Why CrossFit? What Is CrossFit? Locating CrossFit Within the Fitness Industry The (De)Centrality of Greg Glassman CrossFit as a Way of Life Theoretical Approach CrossFit’s Populist Politics References

1 3 3 5 9 10 13 18 22

CrossFit’s Healthist Discourse and the Obesity Risk CrossFit and the Aesthetic Body CrossFit and the Universal Panacea CrossFit Raises the Bar on Individual Responsibilitization Conclusion References

29 32 36 38 39 40

CrossFit and Survivalism CrossFit and the Uncertain Future CrossFit and Anti-technology CrossFit and Surviving the Zombie Apocalypse CrossFit and Anti-authority Conclusion References

45 48 49 51 53 55 56

vii

viii

CONTENTS

CrossFit and Military Entanglements CrossFit and the Legacy of the Boot Camp The Hero WODs Conclusion References

59 61 64 67 67

CrossFit and Populism CrossFit’s Legal Battles CrossFit and Governmental Legislation Conclusion References

71 76 79 84 85

CrossFit’s “Unknown and Unknowable” Future CrossFit and Authoritarian Control CrossFit’s Conjunctural Synergies “It’s Floyd-19” CrossFit and the Promise of a Better Future References

91 93 97 99 101 104

Introduction

Abstract Growing from a niche gym in California to a sprawling branded global fitness empire, CrossFit’s rise in popularity and cultural dominance in the fitness industry has been met with both praise and consternation. Under the (former) leadership of the charismatic and crass co-founder Greg Glassman, CrossFit’s unorthodox training methods provide an alternative to dominant ideas around health, fitness, and lifestyle. In this introductory chapter on CrossFit and authoritarian populism, I provide a brief history and overview of the CrossFit practice and situate that practice within broader debates between the fitness industry and the strength and conditioning community. Following, I discuss why and how I intend to use the hybrid theory/method of articulation as a framework for analyzing the CrossFit phenomenon. Finally, I explore the contours of modern populism and how CrossFit’s branded fitness program provides solutions to the ongoing problems of neoliberal individualization. Keywords CrossFit · Populism · Fitness · Articulation · Strength and conditioning

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2023 S. E. Edmonds, Make America Fit Again, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-6311-9_1

1

2

S. E. EDMONDS

My first experience with CrossFit had me dizzy, dripping in sweat, and shaky. Although I was not visited by the CrossFit mascot, Pukie the Clown, I nonetheless had experienced a workout that had physically and mentally challenged me in a way that I was not quite ready for. At the time of this writing, far distant from that particular workout of the day, I could not tell you what the workout was—just how it made me feel. Looking around the room, I was not the only one beaten into submission. Throughout my time practicing CrossFit, I would experience this moment over and over again: the anticipation of the workout, the thrill of competition, and the inevitable physical and mental exhaustion. CrossFit is an emergent fitness phenomenon and site of physical culture that has a storied and contentious relationship with the broader contemporary fitness industry. The emergence of CrossFit onto the landscape of the fitness industry in the early 2000s was met with derision and criticism by established fitness professionals—even as its unique blend of functional training and accessible teachings had begun to gain traction with a growing faction of gym-goers dissatisfied with their experiences in contemporary gym spaces. It is perhaps the feeling of accomplishing the workout of the day that has led to CrossFit’s unprecedented rise in popularity over the past two decades (Bowles, 2015; Fainaru-Wada, 2014; Gregory, 2014; Herz, 2014; Murphy, 2012; Webster, 2009). Developing from a single gym in 2000 to over 10,000 networked affiliates, CrossFit is the fastest growing branded fitness space in recent times; significantly rivaling other dominant fitness brands such as Golds Gym and L.A. Fitness (“Latest CrossFit Market Research Data”, 2014; Ozanian, 2015). Through its corporate branding, certification programs, and affiliation network, it is estimated that CrossFit accumulates an annual revenue of over $4 billion, with roughly $100 million going directly to CrossFit, Inc. (Ozanian, 2015). Additionally, in developing relationships with Reebok and the Spartan Race organizations, CrossFit has used its brand to expand into clothing and sport tourism industries (Powers & Greenwell, 2016; Rishe, 2011). CrossFit’s ubiquitous presence in the fitness industry and its sprawling empire of CrossFit adherents have made it a dominating force within the fitness industry.

INTRODUCTION

3

Why CrossFit? As a key site for studying non-elite physical culture, CrossFit provides an avenue for developing a more nuanced understanding of the ideological and discursive formations that comprise the contemporary populist movements within the U.S. context. In articulating CrossFit with wider neoliberal discourses of healthism, survivalism, and militarism, I will argue that CrossFit’s authoritarian populism is both a response to, and a progression of, the anxieties and inequalities created in and through neoliberal ideology and policies. In exploring these interconnections between facets of neoliberal ideology and the authoritarian populism of CrossFit, I make legible the workings of power and power relations in and through the CrossFit formation. In the following chapters, I will make the argument that CrossFit, as both an ideology and as a branded form of fitness, has a dialectical relationship with the ongoing and contingent U.S. transition from a predominantly hyperrational neoliberal culture to one that is dominated by authoritarian populist ideology. In exploring the conjunctural articulations that converge in and through CrossFit, I will explore the ways in which CrossFit provides private populist consumptive solutions for the existential fears created through neoliberal policies and ideology. As populism is deeply connected to the inequalities and fractioning of people caused by neoliberal ideology, each chapter will articulate the facets of neoliberal ideology that provided opportunities for CrossFit’s populist solutions.

What Is CrossFit? Founded in 2000 by Greg Glassman and Lauren Jenai, CrossFit is a branded (Powers & Greenwell, 2016) form of physical activity that incorporates elements from strength and conditioning, gymnastics, and Olympic lifting into a competitive group fitness class. CrossFit labels itself the “sport of fitness,” amalgamating the competitive and quantitative components of sport with several of the techniques, methods, and equipment found in strength and conditioning programs (Glassman, 2007). The group classes are a mix of “constantly varied, high intensity, functional movement” designed to “increase work capacity:” a metric that evaluates the ability to move a given load across a distance over a specific time (Glassman, 2007).

4

S. E. EDMONDS

Most adherents of CrossFit practice within a space called a box; a non-traditional gym space that eschews weight training machines and treadmills in favor of powerlifting bars and plyometric boxes (Herz, 2014; Madden, 2014). The modern box is a commercialization of the garage gyms (Glassman, 2002) advocated by Glassman in the early days of CrossFit. In keeping with the minimalist deconstructed gym theme, CrossFit boxes can often be found in reclaimed spaces such as abandoned strip malls and empty warehouses. These spaces, reminiscent of the Turnvereine gymnasiums of the 1800s (Edmonds, 2019), are frequently smaller spaces with equipment stored on the outskirts of a central activity floor. Although no two boxes are identical, they often contain similar types of equipment: plyometric boxes, Olympic lifting equipment, kettlebells, and adjustable power racks. These boxes stand in ideological opposition to traditional commercial gyms, referred to as “globo gyms” (an ironic reference to the film Dodgeball: An Underdog Story), which tend to be more aesthetically focused. Unlike many contemporary fitness corporations that use a franchisebased system of corporate organization, CrossFit instead uses an affiliate system. Under the affiliate system, individual boxes use the CrossFit branded name but otherwise have no contractual obligation or clear hierarchical connection to the CrossFit corporation. This unique arrangement makes it difficult to truly understand the reach and diversity of CrossFit, as no demographic information is collected from the boxes. One of the more attractive features of the affiliate system is the low bar to entry; in order to affiliate CrossFit only requires the affiliate owner to pass a weekend course and pay a yearly fee (Cej, 2009). CrossFit as an organization does not put constraints or limits on where boxes can be developed, nor does it monitor business competition between boxes in similar geographic locations. Instead, Glassman and the organization believe that the free market will decide whether a box succeeds or fails in a given market (Cej, 2009; Herz, 2014). The low bar to entry and the relative anonymity of individual boxes is appealing to entrepreneurs hoping to own their own business. Within the CrossFit box, CrossFit participants engage in the Workout of the Day (WOD), an incredibly variable high-intensity workout performed in competition with other participants. While the CrossFit organization posts its own daily WOD on the CrossFit website, each CrossFit certified coach has discretion in creating their own WOD for their particular CrossFit class. Furthermore, CrossFit has developed a

INTRODUCTION

5

number of named WODs; particularly difficult workouts that are often used as performance benchmarks for CrossFit participants, allowing those in different boxes to compare results with others around the world (Glassman, 2003). Named WODs generally come from two sources; the original “Girls” benchmark WODs created by Glassman (Herz, 2014) and those created later to memorialize the dead—in particular military and police members killed in action (Percy, 2013). Named WODs such as “The Murph” may be performed annually, with participants comparing their scores with other CrossFitters, and comparing their own progress from one year to the next. However, a simple definition of the CrossFit practice and space is woefully inadequate for understanding CrossFit. CrossFit is a cultural phenomenon that is a multivalent and intertextual mix of media, spectacle, knowledge production, branded lifestyle culture (Belger, 2012; Dawson, 2015; Herz, 2014; Powers & Greenwell, 2016), internet phenomenon, and competitive sport (Heywood, 2015a, 2016). Although CrossFit started within a singular gym run by Glassman and Jenai, the development of an online website, message board, and The CrossFit Journal has allowed CrossFit to spread globally (Glassman, 2005; Herz, 2014). The original, mostly online, CrossFit community blossomed into an in-person community with the creation of the affiliate structure, and as such CrossFit has been commended for its creation of a local community (Belger, 2012) in the face of an ever-isolating leisure market (Putnam, 2001). In 2007, the Reebok CrossFit Games brought both the community and the inter-box competition to the global stage, unapologetically claiming to crown the “Fittest on Earth” (Herz, 2014). Through its corporate branding around the televised CrossFit Games, several Netflix documentaries, and its prolific social media presence, CrossFit encourages proselytization of CrossFit’s methodology as well as the conspicuous consumption of CrossFit branded products (Herz, 2014; Powers & Greenwell, 2016). The multivalent nature of the CrossFit formation has allowed CrossFit to permeate many aspects of physical culture and have far-reaching influence in the fitness industry.

Locating CrossFit Within the Fitness Industry In the S&C field, coaches and trainers develop strength and conditioning programs to train athletes on the field and in the weight room with the goal of improving the athlete’s performance in their chosen sport.

6

S. E. EDMONDS

Usually, an S&C professional has developed experience in a few sportspecific training styles while having a broad background knowledge of exercise science (Haff & Triplett, 2015). The S&C professional is focused on maximizing athletic ability while simultaneously reducing the chance of injury in a given sport. If an S&C trainer injures an athlete, the athlete is unable to compete in their sport—potentially costing a league or organization millions with an unplayable athlete. Additionally, the athletic population is arguably more prepared, motivated, and willing to endure higher workout intensity due to their previous sporting experiences. As athletes have the goal of competing in high performance sports, they are more willing to push their bodies, and risk injury, in order to gain a competitive advantage. Conversely, the average fitness professional develops personalized exercise programs or fitness classes for non-athletic populations. These populations are often more focused on developing an aesthetic or healthrelated goal (Hutson, 2013) in contrast with the high performance goals of athletes. While similar to S&C professionals in that specific emphasis is placed on injury prevention, for fitness professionals the recommendations for exercises are often based on much more conservative guidelines than those used for athletes (Coburn & Malek, 2012). The reason for the more conservative guidelines is population-specific—those who are less physically fit are more likely to develop an injury than those who are more physically fit (Knapik, 2015b). Furthermore, personal trainers working with the general non-athletic population may be more likely to incur financial repercussions, such as the loss of clients and litigation, if they accidently injure a client (Malek et al., 2002). Therefore, the goals, populations, and mindset of fitness professionals are quite different than those who work in the S&C field. While both S&C and fitness professionals were widely unregulated with few formal education programs, the fitness boom of the early 1980s brought greater scrutiny to the education level and injury potential of both professions. Many professional development organizations began offering education and certification opportunities to combat negligent professionals, avoid governmental regulation, and elevate professionals in all aspects of the fitness industry (Carter, 2001; Malek et al., 2002; Melton et al., 2010; Rabinoff, 1994). These concerns around litigation and legitimacy were at the forefront of many major organizations associated with the sport and fitness industry at the time of CrossFit’s emergence into the public sphere in the early 2000s.

INTRODUCTION

7

CrossFit’s approach takes elements of the strength and conditioning field and the personal fitness industry and melds them together. On the one hand, CrossFit considers itself the “sport of fitness” and uses the term “coach” to describe CrossFit trainers and “athlete” to describe CrossFit participants (Heywood, 2016; Nash, 2018). Unlike modern sport, which is heavily bureaucratic and consistent from year to year, the competitions within CrossFit are ever-changing and are more akin to an obstacle course race. On the other hand, CrossFit Coach certification is much more similar to a commercial fitness trainer certification; consisting of a weekend course and a summative evaluation (Carroll, 2014). Furthermore, the programming of a CrossFit class is similar to a yoga studio or a group fitness class wherein participation is time bound, independent from one class to the next, and fee based. CrossFit crosses professional and ideological boundaries between athlete-centered and non-athlete-centered exercise paradigms, combining the risks of highlevel athletic activity with the structure of non-athletic fitness classes (Edmonds, 2021). CrossFit’s boundary-crossing is exemplified in the often-recounted CrossFit origin story, in which Glassman was repeatedly kicked out of commercial fitness facilities for performing strength and conditioning athlete-style training within these facilities. According to Glassman, this constant rejection from commercial gyms prompted the creation of the first CrossFit gym (Herz, 2014; Madden, 2014; Murphy, 2012). As CrossFit amalgamates only certain aspects of each industry, much of the initial criticism of CrossFit derived from the professional expectations of each industry pathway. On the strength and conditioning side of the industry, CrossFit’s model of “constant variation” stood contrary to the contemporary model of exercise periodization, and therefore S&C professionals felt that the lack of consistent adaptation would impede athlete development (Petersen et al., 2014; Rippetoe, 2012). Furthermore, Glassman’s constant repudiation of exercise physiology and academic research (Mullins, 2015) put CrossFit at odds with an industry that was investing in exercise science education in attempts to be seen as more rigorous and to further improve athlete development. On the fitness industry side, CrossFit’s focus on Olympic lifts and gymnastic movements appeared too advanced for casual exercisers (Gregory, 2014). For both industry pathways, the level of perceived risk associated with CrossFit’s brand of high-intensity training was considered both unnecessary and alarming (e.g. Bowles, 2015; Campbell, 2016; Fainaru-Wada,

8

S. E. EDMONDS

2014; Knapik, 2015a). It is precisely this divide between the expectations of the sports industry and the expectations of the fitness industry that is exemplified in the following quote from Glassman when asked about injury in CrossFit. “Jesus, as a vast discipline, you orthopedists can’t get enough of football and running, but somehow CrossFit is the boogeyman,” Glassman says. “Fuck injuries. You think we got to 15,000 boxes by hurting everyone?” (Easter, 2018). In this instance, Glassman compares CrossFit to sport and makes the comparison of injury based on a sporting context—not on a fitness training context for non-athletes in a typical fitness facility. In summation, CrossFit pulls from multiple elements of the sportfitness industry, running roughshod over the expectations and boundaries of different professional groupings. In crossing these boundaries, CrossFit challenges typical conceptions of the scope of practice, injury acceptability, and expectations of participants. Therefore, considering some of the debates and criticisms that follow, they must be considered within the context of CrossFit’s boundary-breaking amalgamation of two very distinct industries. Additionally, CrossFit’s development came at a particular conjuncture within the fitness industry that helps to explain CrossFit’s adversarial relationship with other fitness organizations. Fitness organizations in the 1990s were still in the process of developing structured certification programs, condensing extant training knowledge into textbooks, and establishing best practices in response to the fitness boom of the 1980s (Malek et al., 2002). Therefore, much of the knowledge around exercise physiology and training methods remained widely inaccessible except through cultural intermediaries such as fitness trainers or group fitness instructors (Maguire, 2001, 2007, 2008). Furthermore, the industry was still awash with entrepreneurial charlatans seeking to ride the wave of fitness popularity (Malek et al., 2002; McKenzie, 2013). In the midst of this congealing of knowledge production, CrossFit offered a democratized and accessible form of fitness, with many fitness and nutrition gurus adding credibility and depth to the CrossFit oeuvre (e.g. Kilgore & Rippetoe, 2007). Glassman’s personable, direct, and simplified articles provided an approachable entry point into physical activity, while the formation of the CrossFit message boards allowed experts and neophytes alike a space to discuss the latest research on fitness. CrossFit then, grows adjacent to, in tandem with, but not directly connected with many of the

INTRODUCTION

9

dominant fitness organizations. For CrossFit adherents, CrossFit brought the veritable promethean fire to the masses while, to CrossFit adherents, others sought to gatekeep that knowledge.

The (De)Centrality of Greg Glassman As might be evident at this point, co-founder Greg Glassman’s bombastic, charismatic, and controversial personality is central to the CrossFit narrative. Glassman’s early experiences as a strength and conditioning professional, coupled with his ostensibly libertarian sensibilities, are at the heart of the CrossFit philosophy and approach (Herz, 2014). Although individual boxes do not necessarily adhere to all of Glassman’s teachings, the main organization is very much a reflection of Glassman himself (CBS, 2015; Herz, 2014; Shugart, 2008). Subsequently, when talking about the branded organization of CrossFit and the philosophies of Greg Glassman, they are arguably synonymous. Consequentially, Glassman’s ideological beliefs are infused within the CrossFit brand, and those beliefs become articulated with the identity work projects of individuals seeking identity reinvention through CrossFit participation. In the early years of CrossFit, Glassman’s influence was far more pronounced. Numerous foundational articles appearing on the CrossFit website were written by Glassman himself, and the collection of those foundational articles became the de facto textbook used to develop the CrossFit Level 1 Certification. In order to advance in CrossFit certification to the official title of “Coach,” one had to sufficiently impress Glassman himself with their coaching skills and contribution to the CrossFit community (Carroll, 2014). Additionally, Glassman had the power to unilaterally excommunicate someone from CrossFit at will (eg. Wolf, 2009). Glassman’s authoritarian control of CrossFit combined with his charismatic personality led to both reverence (Bowles, 2015) and fear (Almeida, 2020; Rosman, 2020). As CrossFit increased in popularity, particularly with the televised spectacle of the CrossFit Games in 2007, Glassman’s centrality to the organization and his public focus shifted considerably. New guidelines for CrossFit certification provided a clear, and Glassman-free, pathway to the coveted Coach certification (Carroll, 2014). With increasing numbers of CrossFit adherents and instructors, the individual, personal, and visible presence of Glassman receded. Instead, Glassman’s focus became using the CrossFit organization as a form of bully pulpit. At first, Glassman used

10

S. E. EDMONDS

the brand of CrossFit as a way to publicly attack, or resist criticism within, the larger fitness industry (Helm, 2013; Kilgore, 2006, 2016; Kilgore & Rippetoe, 2007; Webster, 2009; Wolf, 2009). Over time, those attacks broadened to include the soda industry (Carpenter, 2018; Leonard, 2016; McCarty, 2016; Wilson, 2016), the U.S. healthcare industry (Belluz, 2018; Easter, 2018), and fitness trainer regulation (Davis, 2015a, 2015b), among others. Glassman’s power over the CrossFit organization appeared nearabsolute, even with his gradual change in focus. While many were hesitant to speak up against Glassman for fear of retribution, in the summer of 2020 Glassman’s acerbic and irreverent personality finally reached a point beyond reconciliation. In a series of tweets taking aim at the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation, coupled with recorded online meetings and emails, Glassman put forward several conspiratorial theories regarding the death of George Floyd, lambasted the COVID-19 public health response, and denied the existence of systemic racism. This finally proved the tipping point for both affiliates and the CrossFit organization. After much consternation and backpedaling, Glassman left his position as CEO of CrossFit. Glassman’s ousting over these comments appeared to be the tip of a much larger iceberg of sexual harassment, racism, and verbal abuse endured by numerous individuals within the CrossFit organization and in the CrossFit practicing population. The long-term fallout from these events is still unknown, with new leadership attempting to both rectify the damage caused directly by Glassman to the CrossFit brand and to also re-evaluate long-term populist CrossFit policies that have been a source of contention for many CrossFit participants.

CrossFit as a Way of Life The process of becoming an insider in the CrossFit subculture requires social, economic, and cultural investment. Although CrossFit is often labeled a cult by adherents and detractors alike, Dawson (2015) argues that CrossFit functions more as a reinventive institution; a space wherein individuals voluntarily pursue self-improvement projects alongside others in the CrossFit program with the intent of developing a new, and arguably better, personal identity. Key to the CrossFit reinventive practice is making significant social, economic, and cultural investments in the CrossFit way of being (Dawson, 2015; Herz, 2014; Heywood, 2015b;

INTRODUCTION

11

Madden, 2014). Heywood (2016) argues that as part of the reinvention process, “CrossFit is expected to take over their life on every level” (p. 127). Nash (2018) states that CrossFit, “advances a mandate for participants to commit to the [CrossFit] philosophy which emphasizes neoliberal physical and psychological self-improvement as a pathway to ‘health’ and ‘fitness’” (p. 17). As a space for personal transformation, CrossFitters are particularly susceptible to the inculcation of ideologies that comprise the formation out of which their new identity and subjectivity is formed. Heywood (2015b) contends that in the current climate of ever-present feelings of risk, “the neuroception of precarity sets off a cascade of responses that make us particularly susceptible to neoliberal ideologies of self-determination and survival independent of outside help” (p. 37). It is precisely the neuroception of precarity that is wrought by neoliberal policies that informs CrossFit’s populist response. Similarly, Dawson (2015) posits that the somatic physicality of the WOD facilitates ideological indoctrination. Taken together, CrossFit participation has the potential to be incredibly transformative and as such it warrants significant attention. As Andrews et al. (2005) contend, participation in spaces of physical activity can lead to the development of certain health subjectivities. Subjectivities are the way in which people use personal opinions and experiences as the basis for their judgments, perspectives, and decision-making. Although individual CrossFit practitioners bring many life experiences and perspectives to their participation in CrossFit, those who practice CrossFit are inundated with messaging, information, and practices that promote certain ontological and epistemological perspectives on health, fitness, and the body. Additionally, as I will argue throughout this book, those perspectives extend beyond the CrossFit practice to notions of governance, risk, and nationalism, among others. As those perspectives become internalized, a key component of moving to in-group status within the CrossFit community (Edmonds, 2019), they form the basis for individual subjectivities. Therefore, CrossFit can be seen as a powerful and influential formation in the development of subjectivities that reinforce inequitable neoliberal ideology and drive toward populist solutions. The reinforcement of neoliberal ideology is particularly apparent in the valuation of suffering within the CrossFit community. Key to CrossFit’s development as a localized and extended community is the shared psychological and physiological intensity inherent in the CrossFit WOD (Belger, 2012; Herz, 2014). As a manifestation of what Atkinson (2008) describes

12

S. E. EDMONDS

as a “pain community,” CrossFit participants bond through the shared suffering through pain experienced as part of the CrossFit practice. In pain communities, “the ability to withstand and enjoy suffering is a form of ‘bonding social capital’ that members values as a marker of their collective identity” (Atkinson, 2008, pp. 165–166). The reinvented identity that CrossFit offers requires that participants undergo a form of secular sanctification of the body that promises absolution, even as it reproduces and reinforces neoliberal ideals. “In [CrossFit], pain is discursively constructed through neoliberal ideologies whereby individuals became more responsible, productive citizens by suffering collectively… Ultimately, it is up to the individual to take control of and manage their pain and make productive use of it, invoking the neoliberal tenets of self-sufficiency and responsibility” (Nash, 2018, p. 17). As a result, the cultural bonding through collective suffering is imbricated in neoliberal ideas of health and fitness that position the ideal neoliberal subject as one that eagerly suffers through the WOD. While many voluntarily embark on reinventive identity development through the CrossFit practice, CrossFit’s wild popularity, adaptable WOD structure, and low equipment costs have made it an alluring choice for corporate and public health interventions that seek to efficiently improve wellness. CrossFit’s exercise and diet program have been piloted as a workplace wellness intervention that sought to improve employee productivity (Envick, 2012). Additionally, CrossFit has been used as an intervention in the public school system (Eather et al., 2016) and for after-school programs (Gipson et al., 2016; Kozub, 2013; Wilson, 2016). The use of CrossFit as an intervention injects CrossFit’s reinventive neoliberal health subjectivity (Andrews et al., 2005) into spaces that may not desire nor need indoctrination into such a totalizing institution. Through its use as an intervention, CrossFit’s fitness practice, entwined with its ideological physical culture, extends CrossFit’s reach beyond the walls of the box and into the workplace and the community. CrossFit’s boundary-breaking (and boundary-making) project has made it a novel site for examining the changing landscape of physical culture. As a space of physical culture, CrossFit offers a complicated and often contradictory space for new forms of female empowerment by developing alternative bodywork projects that valorize a more muscular feminine form, even as CrossFit’s social media reproduces the objectification of certain types of women (Ba¸stu˘g et al., 2016; Crockett & Butryn,

INTRODUCTION

13

2017; Heywood, 2015b; Knapp, 2015a, 2015b; McCarty, 2013; Washington & Economides, 2015). Additionally, CrossFit reinforces modern neoliberal discourses of individual self-improvement and social stratification even as it offers a more egalitarian and communal physical culture through both its online network and the space of the localized affiliate box (Belger, 2012; Crockett & Butryn, 2017; Heywood, 2015a, 2016; Knapp, 2015b). Furthermore, CrossFit has been boundary-breaking in its amalgamation of traditional commercial fitness culture with the more sport-based strength and conditioning field, even as it has been boundarymaking in its populist anti-elite, anti-educational institution perspective. In other words, CrossFit’s paradoxical and conflicted approach to sport and fitness potentially provides new ways to approach the changing landscape of physical culture and the populist responses to neoliberal ideology. However, while there is a growing body of literature on the CrossFit phenomenon, there are still many aspects of the CrossFit formation that are underexplored. Building on this burgeoning CrossFit research, this work seeks to explore the ways in which CrossFit articulates with wider discourses of individual health, the modern survivalist movement, increased militarism, and ultimately the contemporary populist movement. By forging articulations and illuminating linkages that connect CrossFit’s philosophies and success to wider ideological and sociopolitical discourses found in the contemporary context, this book explores the operation of power and power relations in and through the techniques of bodily self-regulation and the development of subjectivities present in the CrossFit formation. Through the use of a radical contextualism theory/method framework, this research further extends the Physical Cultural Studies (PCS) project of investigating the articulation of physical culture with and within power and power relations, as well as the embodied physically active body, with and within larger sociopolitical discourses.

Theoretical Approach This work employs a physical cultural studies (PCS) approach in order to illuminate the multivalent, intertextual, and complex articulations of CrossFit with and within contemporary ideological formations such as populism and neoliberalism. The PCS approach is theoretically informed by the cultural studies framework initially introduced at the Centre for Contemporary Cultural Studies at the University of Birmingham. In a

14

S. E. EDMONDS

cultural studies approach, researchers consider the lived experience of the populace and how the day-to-day choices, passions, and consumptive practices are imbricated within wider ideological, social, and political practices. A PCS approach is somewhat more narrow in that it centers the everyday practices, comportments, and values of physical activity within this broader network of other cultural expressions and signification. In centering physical activity, the experience of living and moving within and through our bodies becomes a point of exploration through which to investigate the layered and always already multifaceted inter/intra-actions that both constitute and are constituted by a given cultural practice or cultural phenomena. For PCS researchers, physical activity and the physically (in)active body are a point of entry into explicating the workings of power and power relations with and within a given cultural phenomenon, context, and/or conjuncture. According to Silk and Andrews (2011), “PCS seeks to ‘construct a political history of the (physical cultural) present’ (Grossberg, 2006, p. 2), through which it becomes possible to construct politically expedient physical cultural possibilities out of the historical circumstances it confronts” (p. 10). In other words, the PCS project is an inherently emancipatory project in that it challenges us to “…illuminate, and intervene into, sites of physical cultural injustice and inequity” (Andrews, 2008, p. 54). The purpose of using the PCS approach to the CrossFit phenomenon is not only to better understand the workings of power and power relationships through this particular form of activity, but also to provide points of entry for considering more equitable and inclusive practices within CrossFit itself. Within a cultural studies framework, we can conceptualize that broader ideologies (such as populism) are transmitted through discourse and have the end result of producing certain subjectivities. Cultural studies scholars argue that ideology is the way in which the dominant cultural and material formations of a given society work to reproduce the dominant cultural and material order. Ideology operates through the development and proliferation of social and cultural practices that compel individuals to perceive the world through the dominant order. According to Hall (1985b), “Ideologies are the frameworks of thinking and calculation about the world – the ‘ideas’ which people use to figure out how the social world works, what their place is in it and what they ought to do” (p. 99). This ordering of practices is socially constructed in order to retain material and political power in the hands of those who benefit from the

INTRODUCTION

15

dominant order. As Grossberg (2009) argues, “…power is understood not necessarily in the form of domination, but always as an unequal relation of forces, in the interests of particular fractions of the population” (p. 248). In the case of ideology, power operates through the control of social and cultural practices and the reproduction of unequal power relations that favor certain interests or groups. One particular way in which ideologies exert power and power relations is through discourse. As Hall (1985b) argues, “Ideologies do not operate through single ideas; they operate, in discursive chains, in clusters, in semantic fields, and discursive formations” (p. 104). Discourse is the practice of making meaning through the use of language in social practices. It is through the knowledges produced through discourses, and the contingent constellation of semiotic meanings attached in and through language, that ideological formations transmit values. Althusser argues that it is through inculcation in the values of the dominant ideology that individuals develop, or are interpellated into, subjectivities that reproduce dominant ideology (Hall, 1985b). Discourse is one pathway through which dominant ideological values are transformed into individual subjectivities (Hall, 1996). Therefore, discourses can reinforce and facilitate power and power relations that function to reproduce dominant ideological formations. Taken together, ideologies and discourses are powerful forces in the development of individual subjectivities. As these subjectivities shape the ways in which individuals make meaning of the world around them, understand their lived experience, and locate themselves in the social order, ideologies and discourses exert tremendous power and influence in the (re)creation of hierarchies of dominance (Hall, 1985b). The development of these subjectivities exerts power over individuals by limiting their individual agency and reproducing often oppressive hierarchies and practices. Given the taken for granted nature of many ideologies and discourses, and their pervasive influence through social and cultural practices, their ability to insidiously exert power over individual subjectivities requires that we, “…analyze or deconstruct language and behavior in order to decipher the patterns of ideological thinking which are inscribed in them” (Hall, 1985b, p. 100). The PCS project centers the physically active body in the study of power and power relations in order to interrogate the ways in which physical activity practices “…contribute[] to the formation of individual subjectivities” (Silk & Andrews, 2011, p. 15).

16

S. E. EDMONDS

Through the development of subjectivities, non-necessary epistemological and ontological ideology becomes articulated with, and subsequently normalized in and through, the embodied practice of physical activity. In examining the imbrications of ideology in the CrossFit phenomenon, and its connection with wider ideological discourses, we can begin to unpack the workings of power and power relations in the development of individual subjectivities. As the CrossFit phenomenon overlaps, intersects, informs, and is informed by broader social and cultural ideas, I use a radically contextual framework to best analyze the working of power and power relations in and through CrossFit. Radical contextualism is an anti-reductive analytic approach developed through the field of cultural studies that uses a Marxist dialectical approach to illuminate and trace the entangled meanings that constitute a given context or conjuncture (Grossberg, 1986). As Andrews (2002) contends, any given “…cultural practice … [is] produced from specific social and historical contexts, [and] also actively engaged in the ongoing constitution of the conditions out of which they emerge” (p. 115). Therefore, this framework’s ontological and epistemological approach asserts that a given context or conjuncture is co-constituted and mutually reinforcing. In order to radically contextualize the formations of power and power relations within a given context, radical contextualism relies on the hybrid theory/method of articulation (Grossberg, 2009). Articulation is an active theoretical and methodological process that seeks to create and understand the contingent relationships of a given moment in a given context or conjuncture. The concept of articulation is based on its dual linguistic meaning. First, the verb “articulate” means to speak. Second, the noun “articulate” means to bring together two different things. As Hall (Grossberg, 1986) articulates, “An articulation is thus the form of the connection that can make a unity of two different elements, under certain conditions. It is a linkage which is not necessary, determined, absolute and essential for all time” (p. 53). Through articulation, a given phenomenon takes on new meaning and value that is contingent and contextual. As the linkages in and through which a context derives and creates meaning are not always readily apparent, the linkages must be actively recreated in order to radically contextualize a given phenomenon. As King (2005) elucidates, “…in order to ‘do’ articulation, it is necessary to reconstruct or fabricate the network of social, political, economic, and cultural articulations, or linkages, that produce any particular cultural

INTRODUCTION

17

phenomenon and trace, in turn, how the phenomenon (re)shapes the formation of which it is a part” (p. 27). Consequently, articulation can be considered a practice of recreating the context in and through which a phenomenon emerges and concomitantly analyzes the strength and magnitude of these relationships (Grossberg, 1986). In forging articulations between and among discourses in a constellation of potential connections, power and power relations can be meaningfully engaged. Unlike some forms of research, through the process of radical contextualism the author maintains an explicitly active and agentic role in the forging of connections in and through the web of contexts with which a given phenomenon is dialectically entangled (Slack, 1996). In grappling with the formation of a given context, the process of articulation requires the active linking of practices, forces, institutions, processes, and discourses that make the formation legible. The researcher is tasked with, “…reconstructing a context within which an instance of the physical becomes understandable” (Silk & Andrews, 2011, p. 15). Therefore the use of a radical contextualism paradigm is inherently a political and biased approach that deliberately and actively develops articulations in order to understand the relations of power within a given context or conjuncture. Only in understanding the articulations that make legible a given phenomenon, and the contexts within which it is co-constituted, can we hope to craft interventions that lead to more equitable distribution and use of power. Therefore, as a social justice project, the cultural studies approach of radical contextualism seeks to intervene in inequitable power relations by revealing the unnecessary nature of articulations and re-articulating power and discourse toward more equitable ends. Through the critical reflexive work required for the process of articulation, we can develop, “…other ways of theorizing the elements of a social formation and the relations that constitute unities that instantiate relations of dominance and subordination” (Slack, 1996, p. 118). In illuminating particular articulations, we open space for those articulations to then be altered. Hall argues in interviews with Grossberg (1986) that, “Since those articulations are not inevitable, not necessary, they can potentially be transformed” (p. 54). In other words, since articulations that produce and are produced by a particular context or conjuncture are not necessary, other potential articulations are always already possible. As long as the possibility for rearticulation exists, there is the possibility to intervene in the workings of power. Once these relations of power are illuminated, only then can we

18

S. E. EDMONDS

seek to de-articulate and then re-articulate these connections in order to move toward more equitable cultural practices (Silk & Andrews, 2011). However, in forging articulations between CrossFit and wider discourses, there are some limitations. As CrossFit’s articulation with wider discourses of power and power relations is otherwise contingent until the last instance (Hall, 1996), in order to examine the contemporary organization of CrossFit in relation to the fitness industry and wider social and political discourses, this work creates a “momentary crystalline” (Richardson, 1994) of the CrossFit phenomenon. While such a boundary project is inherently limited by its contingent, porous, and arbitrary nature, it is necessary in order to trace the movement of power in and through CrossFit. As Silk et al. (2017) argue, “…physical cultural phenomena are the aggregates of multiple and intersecting determinant relations and effects” (p. 6). In this particular case, I will argue that the CrossFit phenomenon has developed a set of shared values and discourses that are articulated in contemporary discourses of healthist individual responsibility, survivalist apocalyptic preparedness, military valorization, and populist political ideology.

CrossFit’s Populist Politics CrossFit’s authoritarian populist practices can be articulated as an expression of, and a response to, neoliberal policies and ideology that have simultaneously increased economic disparities and fomented antidemocratic sentiment within the general populace. Associated with the rise of Margaret Thatcher in the United Kingdom and Ronald Reagan in the United States, neoliberalism first developed as a set of economic policies and ideological practices that focused on tax reduction, government deregulation, and incentive structures for private businesses. Through neoliberal policies, the role of the government shifted from providing a safety net for the general populace to instead focusing on economic growth through the development and support of private businesses. Neoliberal leaders argued that by financially supporting big businesses, the profits from these businesses would “trickle down” to the general populace—indirectly providing economic benefits to those who actively engaged in wage labor (Harvey, 2005). However, the end result of these neoliberal policies has been an upward distribution of wealth, as corporations continue to reap the benefits of deregulation and the money that

INTRODUCTION

19

was expected to trickle down is instead siphoned by wealthy shareholders and investors (e.g. Giroux, 2018; Kuttner, 2019). Although neoliberalism began as an economic policy, neoliberal ideology has suffused into political, cultural, and social fields as well. As Brown contends, modern neoliberalism has seen, “…both deregulation and privatization become broad moral-philosophical principles extending well beyond the economy” (Brown, 2018, p. 63). Of particular interest to scholars studying physical culture is the individualization and hyperrationality that has permeated spaces of sport and physical activity. Physical fitness and the production of individual health has shifted from a public good (evidenced by physical education in schools, public parks, and local recreation centers) to a selection of private purchases for the individual to make in the neoliberal marketplace (Maguire, 2007; Sassatelli, 2010; Wiest et al., 2015). Furthermore, those individual choices become cultural markers of good citizenship, creating an increased demand for services and products that help the individual showcase their moral and social worth (Dworkin & Wachs, 2009; Shilling, 2012). The individualization and hyperrationality of health have driven numerous detrimental psychological and physical outcomes such as body dysmorphia and disordered eating, among others (Brown & Baker, 2012; Crawford, 1980, 2006; Dworkin & Wachs, 2009). While the problems of neoliberal ideology have dominated contemporary conversations around inequality and social justice (Duggan, 2003; Harvey, 2005), the modern rise in populism in response to neoliberal policies was both expected and anticipated. Scholars studying neoliberalism have warned of the problematic outcomes associated with the upward distribution of wealth, the elimination of social safety nets, and the concomitant breakdown of democratic social institutions. In Morelock’s (2018) review of scholarship by critical theorists of the Frankfurt school, the rise of populism and its connection to economic and social inequality was predicted as far back as World War II. More recently, Hall’s research on Thatcherism builds on the work of the Frankfurt scholars, predicting the rise of authoritarian populism as a logical endpoint of neoliberal individualization (Hall, 1985a). In particular, Hall identifies the hyperrationality of Thatcherism as being a potential catalyst for neoliberal ideology to transform into populism (Hall & Jacques, 1983). Just as numerous scholars had forecasted, populist leaders and policies have become an emergent force in contemporary global politics.

20

S. E. EDMONDS

Even though populism itself is a collection of strategies with no inherent foundation in a particular political ideology (Maskovsky & BjorkJames, 2020), the contours of populist ideology do have certain universal characteristics. Morelock (2018) describes populism as, “…defining a section of the population as truly and rightfully ‘the people’ and aligning with this section against a different group identified as elites” (p. xiv). Similarly, Rensmann (2018) argues that, “contemporary populist mobilizations thrive on ‘breaking the rules,’ ridiculing civilizational democratic norms and standards as ‘taboos,’ and expressing a conformist ‘rebellion’ against the ‘liberal elite’” (p. 33). Populism then is a boundary-making project invested in disrupting power and power relations between an emergent and “inherently virtuous” populace and the established norms and leadership in a given society. One of the key sources of populism’s power is the ways in which populism simplifies complex economic, social, and cultural inequalities created through neoliberal policies and increased globalization, and redirects anger concerning those problems to ambiguous outside “others.” If populism creates one group that is “inherently virtuous,” it simultaneously cleaves into existence a group that is “other,” and therefore unworthy of the sovereignty of citizenship. Robotham (2020) argues that populist leaders, “…use a highly emotive demagogic vernacular designed to keep the populace in a permanent state of political mobilization and semihysteria” (p. 28). In fomenting and directing anger at an “outsider” group, populist leaders use emotional and evocative language to rally the “virtuous” into an ostensibly homogenous group. Peters (2018) contends that populism’s boundary-making project has been exacerbated by both increases in globalization and greater calls for diversity acceptance. For populist leaders, heterogeneity is a threat to their boundary-making project of developing a homogenous, righteous following. In addition to populism’s inherent xenophobia is populism’s antidemocratic ideology. As Maskovsky and Bjork-James (2020) argue, disenchantment with democratic institutions is the inevitable endpoint of neoliberal social and political policies based on austerity, limited governmental social support networks, and an unregulated marketplace. If neoliberal ideology situates the full responsibility of social, economic, and cultural choices on the individual, then populism is the end result of individuals valorizing their own personal experience and divorcing themselves from democratizing social institutions. Under neoliberalism, “…the personal sphere is expanded and freedom is defined by personal

INTRODUCTION

21

pursuits and not collective protections or the collective exercise of democracy. In this logic democracy becomes a threat to freedom, in that the collective – any collective – may limit the freedom of the individual to pursue their own private economic interests” (Maskovsky & Bjork-James, 2020, p. 10). Disenfranchised by a governmental system that seems to have abandoned them, and emboldened by their focus on the individual, populists believe that any collective action that does not directly benefit them is an infringement on their rights, and they will actively work against such infringement. In many ways, populism is yet another gangrenous growth of neoliberalism—redirecting the populace away from the policies that favor businesses over people and that actively siphon resources from the majority of the population for the benefit of the uber-wealthy. Instead, some imaginative “other”—whether that be the foreigner, the elite, or the immigrant—becomes the source of individual failures to accomplish the impossible libertarian ideals required of neoliberalism. As Robotham (2020) argues, “populism is about addressing the economic, social and political problems created by neoliberal globalization” (p. 30). However, in defining one group as a worthy virtuous people, populism is an othering process that is both anti-democratic and inherently inequitable to those deemed as unworthy outsiders. In the following chapters, I will argue that CrossFit, under the authoritarian populist leadership of Greg Glassman, has developed a populist solution to the anxieties around physical health created in and through neoliberal policies and the reactions to such policies. In Chapter 2 I will explore how CrossFit’s re-articulation of health as an instrumental project resists dominant discourses of what health should “look” like, even as it promotes itself as a universal panacea to a multitude of physical, mental, and social health issues. Chapter 3 articulates CrossFit’s anti-technology and anti-authority ideology with similar subjectivities in the survivalist/ prepper communities. CrossFit’s connection to, and valorization of, military and other law enforcement organizations is discussed in Chapter 4. In Chapter 5, CrossFit’s legal battles and resistance to regulation are articulated with the modern populist movement. Chapter 6 brings together the previous four chapters as a foundation for understanding the choices of CrossFit leadership, and to consider what is next for CrossFit following the departure of Greg Glassman. In this chapter I focus specifically on Glassman himself and how his style of charismatic authoritarian populist leadership attracted an intense and

22

S. E. EDMONDS

allegiant following, even as it proved to ultimately be the source of his downfall. I separate Glassman and his controversies from other chapters because although many who have joined CrossFit in the past decade have not centered Glassman in their practice, they remain entangled with the policies, practices, and subjectivities created out of Glassman’s CrossFit project. As such, even though Glassman is not central to their practice, and they may distance themselves from his behavior and choices, CrossFit practitioners are still enmeshed in the healthist, militarist, survivalist, and ultimately populist organization that he was instrumental in creating.

References Almeida, G. (2020). Is CrossFit diverse and inclusive? https://medium.com/ @galmeidan/is-crossfit-diverse-and-inclusive-b3bea347520b Andrews, D. L. (2002). Coming to terms with cultural studies. Journal of Sport & Social Issues, 26(1), 110–117. Andrews, D. L. (2008). Kinesiology’s inconvenient truth and the physical cultural studies imperative. Quest, 60(1), 45–62. Andrews, G. J., Sudwell, M. I., & Sparkes, A. C. (2005). Towards a geography of fitness: An ethnographic case study of the gym in British bodybuilding culture. Social Science & Medicine, 60(4), 877–891. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soc scimed.2004.06.029 Atkinson, M. (2008). Triathlon, suffering and exciting significance. Leisure Studies, 27 (2), 165–180. Ba¸stu˘g, G., Özcan, R., Gültekin, D., & Günay, Ö. (2016). The effects of crossfit, pilates and zumba exercise on body composition and body image of women. International Journal of Sports, Exercise and Training Science, 2(1). https://doi.org/10.18826/ijsets.25037 Belger, A. W. (2012). The power of community: CrossFit and the force of human connection. Victory Belt Pub. Incorporated. Belluz, J. (2018). CrossFit is amassing an army of doctors trying to disrupt health care. https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2018/12/ 13/18095546/crossfit-greg-glassman-doctors-health-care-prevention Bowles, N. (2015). Exclusive: On the warpath with CrossFit’s Greg Glassman. Maxim. http://www.maxim.com/maxim-man/crossfit-greg-glassman-exclus ive-2015-9 Brown, B. J., & Baker, S. (2012). Responsible citizens: Individuals, health, and policy under neoliberalism. Anthem Press. Brown, W. (2018). Neoliberalism’s Frankenstein: Authoritarian freedom in twenty-first century “democracies.” Critical Times, 1(1), 60–79.

INTRODUCTION

23

Campbell, H. (2016). Fitness fallacy: An open letter to crossfit CEO Greg Glassman. https://www.acsh.org/news/2016/03/01/an-open-letter-to-cro ssfit-ceo-greg-glassman-2 Carpenter, M. (2018). Mr. CrossFit vs Big Soda: A profane fitness guru’s wonky war with the soda industry. The Washington Post. https://www. washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/magazine/mr-crossfit-vs-big-soda-a-profanefitness-gurus-wonky-war-with-the-soda-industry/2018/06/03/88aaa8205aa6-11e8-8836-a4a123c359ab_story.html Carroll, N. (2014). CrossFit trainer education and certification: New programs and a new structure. The CrossFit Journal. Carter, L. (2001). The personal trainer: A perspective. Strength & Conditioning Journal, 23(1), 14. CBS (Producer). (2015). 60 minutes: King of CrossFit. 60 Minutes. [Video] http://www.cbs.com/shows/60_minutes/video/2V3s2ipVtqaIhDB TZ9TVxmx7ZvSz6RuW/king-of-crossfit/ Cej, M. (2009). The business of CrossFit. The CrossFit Journal, 1–11. Coburn, J. W., & Malek, M. H. (2012). NSCA’s essentials of personal training. Human Kinetics. Crawford, R. (1980). Healthism and the medicalization of everyday life. International Journal of Health Services, 10(3), 365–388. Crawford, R. (2006). Health as a meaningful social practice. Health, 10(4), 401– 420. Crockett, M., & Butryn, T. (2017). Chasing Rx: A spatial ethnography of the CrossFit gym. Sociology of Sport Journal, 35, 1–34. Davis, A. C. (2015a, September 24). D.C. weakens on nation’s first registry of personal trainers. The Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/ local/dc-politics/dc-weakens-on-nations-first-registry-of-personal-trainers/ 2015/09/24/f789a864-62fa-11e5-b38e-06883aacba64_story.html Davis, A. C. (2015b, August 23). In the nation’s capital, a new business to regulate: D.C.’s personal trainers. The Washington Post. https://www.washin gtonpost.com/local/dc-politics/in-the-nations-capital-a-new-business-to-reg ulate-dcs-personal-trainers/2015/08/23/f86bb0b8-3a1b-11e5-8e98-115a3c f7d7ae_story.html Dawson, M. C. (2015). CrossFit: Fitness cult or reinventive institution? International Review for the Sociology of Sport. https://doi.org/10.1177/101269 0215591793 Duggan, L. (2003). The twilight of equality?: Neoliberalism, cultural politics, and the attack on democracy. Beacon Press. Dworkin, S. L., & Wachs, F. L. (2009). Body panic: Gender, health, and the selling of fitness. New York University Press.

24

S. E. EDMONDS

Easter, M. (2018). CrossFit’s Greg Glassman disrupted fitness. Next, he’s taking on healthcare. https://www.menshealth.com/health/a23663806/ greg-glassman-crossfit-health/ Eather, N., Morgan, P. J., & Lubans, D. R. (2016). Improving health-related fitness in adolescents: The CrossFit Teens™ randomised controlled trial. Journal of Sports Sciences, 34(3), 209–223. Edmonds, S. (2021). Is injury “on brand”? Examining the contexts of the CrossFit injury connection. In S. Wagg & A. M. Pollock (Eds.), The Palgrave handbook of sport, politics and harm (pp. 405–428). Springer. Edmonds, S. E. (2019). Geographies of (cross) fitness: An ethnographic case study of a CrossFit box. Qualitative Research in Sport, Exercise and Health, 12, 192–206. Envick, B. R. (2012). Investing in a healthy workforce: The impact of physical wellness on psychological well-being and the critical implications for worker performance. Academy of Health Care Management Journal, 8(1/2), 21. Fainaru-Wada, M. (2014). CrossFit’s big growth fuels concerns. ESPN. http:// espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_/id/11262964 Gipson, C. M., Moore, M., Burdette, T., & Wilson, C. H. (2016). Impact of a CrossFit intervention as an after-school program for the boys and girls club. Giroux, H. A. (2018). The terror of neoliberalism. Routledge. Glassman, G. (2002). The garage gym. The CrossFit Journal (2), 1–12. Glassman, G. (2003). Benchmark workouts. The CrossFit Journal. Glassman, G. (2005). www.crossfit.com. The CrossFit Journal (40), 1–5. Glassman, G. (2007). Understanding CrossFit. The CrossFit Journal (56), 1–2. Gregory, S. (2014). Lift squat repeat. Crossfit gyms’ cultish painiacs love their max-out-and-do-it-again training regimen. Their critics are getting a workout too. Time, 183(2), 40–44. Grossberg, L. (1986). On postmodernism and articulation: An interview with Stuart Hall. Journal of Communication Inquiry, 10(2), 45–60. Grossberg, L. (2009). What’s in a name (one more time). In Media/cultural studies: Critical approaches (p. 25). Peter Lang. Haff, G. G., & Triplett, N. T. (2015). Essentials of strength training and conditioning (4th ed.). Human Kinetics. Hall, S. (1985a). Authoritarian populism: A reply. New Left Review (151), 115. Hall, S. (1985b). Signification, representation, ideology: Althusser and the poststructuralist debates. Critical Studies in Media Communication, 2(2), 91–114. Hall, S. (1996). The problem of ideology: Marxism without guarantees In D. Morley & K. H. Chen (Eds.), Stuart Hall: Critical dialogues in cultural studies (pp. 25–46). Routledge. Hall, S., & Jacques, M. (Eds.). (1983). The politics of Thatcherism. Lawrence and Wishart Ltd. Harvey, D. (2005). A brief history of neoliberalism. Oxford University Press.

INTRODUCTION

25

Helm, B. (2013). Do not cross CrossFit. Inc. Magazine. https://www.inc.com/ magazine/201307/burt-helm/crossfit-empire.html Herz, J. C. (2014). Learning to breathe fire: The rise of CrossFit and the primal future of fitness. Three Rivers Press. Heywood, L. (2015a). The CrossFit sensorium: Visuality, affect and immersive sport. Paragraph, 38(1), 20–36. https://doi.org/10.3366/para.2015.0144 Heywood, L. (2015b). ‘Strange borrowing’: Affective neuroscience, neoliberalism and the ‘cruelly optimistic’ gendered bodies of CrossFit. In C. Nally & A. Smith (Eds.), Twenty-first century feminism: Forming and performing femininity (pp. 17–40). Springer. Heywood, L. (2016). ‘We’re in this together:’ Neoliberalism and the disruption of the coach/athlete hierarchy in CrossFit. Sports Coaching Review, 5(1), 116– 129. Hutson, D. J. (2013). “Your body is your business card”: Bodily capital and health authority in the fitness industry. Social Science & Medicine, 90, 63–71. Kilgore, L. (2006). The paradox of the aerobic fitness prescription. The CrossFit Journal (52), 1–6. Kilgore, L. (2016). Exercise is medicine: Imprecision and impracticality. The CrossFit Journal, 1–6. Kilgore, L., & Rippetoe, M. (2007). Redefining fitness for health and fitness professionals. Journal of Exercise Physiology, 10(1), 34–39. King, S. (2005). Methodological contingencies in sports studies. In Qualitative methods in sports studies (pp. 21–38). Berg Knapik, J. J. (2015a). Extreme conditioning programs: Potential benefits and potential risks. Journal of Special Operations Medicine: A Peer Reviewed Journal for SOF Medical Professionals, 15(3), 108. Knapik, J. J. (2015b). The importance of physical fitness for injury prevention: Part 1. Journal of Special Operations Medicine, 15(1), 123–127. Knapp, B. A. (2015a). Gender representation in the CrossFit Journal: A content analysis. Sport in Society, 18(6), 688–703. Knapp, B. A. (2015b). Rx’d and shirtless: An examination of gender in a CrossFit box. Women in Sport and Physical Activity Journal, 23(1), 42–53. Kozub, F. M. (2013). Using the snatch and CrossFit principles to facilitate fitness: Editor: Ferman Konukman. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance, 84(6), 13–16. Kuttner, R. (2019, June 25). Neoliberalism: Politcal success, economic failure. The American Prospect. https://prospect.org/economy/neoliberalism-politi cal-success-economic-failure/ Leonard, K. (2016). CrossFit’s founder seeks to sour government’s Soda Stance. U.S. News & World Report. http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/201609-21/crossfit-brings-soda-battle-to-capitol-hill

26

S. E. EDMONDS

Madden, S. (2014). Embrace the suck: What I learned at the box about hard work, (very) sore muscles, and burpees before sunrise. HarperWave, an imprint of HarperCollins Publishers. Maguire, J. S. (2001). Fit and flexible: The fitness industry, personal trainers and emotional service labor. Sociology of Sport Journal, 18(4), 379–402. Maguire, J. S. (2007). Fit for consumption: Sociology and the business of fitness. Routledge. Maguire, J. S. (2008). The personal is professional: Personal trainers as a case study of cultural intermediaries. International Journal of Cultural Studies, 11(2), 211–229. Malek, M. H., Nalbone, D. P., Berger, D. E., & Coburn, J. W. (2002). Importance of health science education for personal fitness trainers. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, 16(1), 19–24. Maskovsky, J., & Bjork-James, S. (2020). Beyond populism: Angry politics and the twilight of neoliberalism. West Virginia University Press. McCarty, P. (2013). Dear CrossFit: Talayna deserves better. https://breakingm uscle.com/learn/dear-crossfit-talayna-deserves-better McCarty, P. (2016). Breaking down the CrossFit, #sugarkills, and coke debate. http://breakingmuscle.com/fitness/breaking-down-the-crossfit-sugarkillsand-coke-debate McKenzie, S. (2013). Getting physical: The rise of fitness culture in America. University Press of Kansas Lawrence. Melton, D. I., Dail, T. K., Katula, J. A., & Mustian, K. M. (2010). The current state of personal training: Managers’ perspectives. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, 24(11), 3173–3179. Morelock, J. (2018). Introduction: The Frankfurt School and authoritarian populism—A historical outline. In J. Morelock (Ed.), Critical theory and authoritarian populism. University of Westminster Press. Mullins, N. (2015). CrossFit: Remember what you have learned; apply what you know. Journal of Exercise Physiology, 18(6), 32–45. Murphy, T. (2012). Inside the box: How CrossFit® shredded the rules, stripped down the gym, and rebuilt my body. VeloPress. n.a. (2014). Latest CrossFit market research data. Rally Fitness. http://rallyfitn ess.com/blogs/news/16063884-latest-crossfit-market-research-data Nash, M. (2018). ‘Let’s work on your weaknesses’: Australian CrossFit coaching, masculinity and neoliberal framings of ‘health’ and ‘fitness.’ Sport in Society, 21(9), 1432–1453. Ozanian, M. (2015, February 25). How CrossFit became a $4 billion brand. Forbes. http://www.forbes.com/sites/mikeozanian/2015/02/25/ how-crossfit-became-a-4-billion-brand/ Percy, J. (2013, June 14). Sweat in peace. New Republic. https://newrepublic. com/article/113284/crossfit-memorializes-dead-war-heroes-workouts

INTRODUCTION

27

Peters, M. A. (2018). The end of neoliberal globalisation and the rise of authoritarian populism (Vol. 50, pp. 323–325). Taylor & Francis. Petersen, D., Pinske, K., & Greener, T. (2014). College coaches corner— CrossFit. Strength & Conditioning Journal, 36(2), 56–58. Powers, D., & Greenwell, D. (2016). Branded fitness: Exercise and promotional culture. Journal of Consumer Culture, 17 (3), 523–541. Putnam, R. D. (2001). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. Simon and Schuster. Rabinoff, M. A. (1994). Weight room litigation: What’s it all about? Strength & Conditioning Journal, 16(2), 10–12. Rensmann, L. (2018). The persistence of the authoritarian appeal: On critical theory as a framework for studying populist actors in European democracies. In J. Morelock (Ed.), Critical theory and authoritarian populism (pp. 29–47). University of Westminster Press. Richardson, L. (1994). Writing: A method of inquiry. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 516–529). Sage. Rippetoe, M. (2012). Crossfit: The good, bad, and the ugly. https://www.t-nat ion.com/training/crossfit-the-good-bad-and-the-ugly Rishe, P. (2011). CrossFit’s relationship with Reebok enhances its financial and commercial credibility. Forbes. http://www.forbes.com/sites/sportsmoney/ 2011/07/22/crossfits-relationship-with-reebok-enhances-its-financial-andcommercial-credibility/ Robotham, D. (2020). Populism and its others: After neoliberalism. In J. Maskovsky & S. Bjork-James (Eds.), Beyond populism: Angry politics and the twilight of neoliberalism (pp. 23–41). West Virginia University Press. Rosman, K. (2020, June 20). CrossFit owner fostered sexist company culture, workers say. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/20/ style/greg-glassman-crossfit-sexism.html Sassatelli, R. (2010). Fitness culture: Gyms and the commercialisation of discipline and fun. Palgrave Macmillan. Shilling, C. (2012). The body and social theory. Sage. Shugart, C. (2008). The truth about CrossFit. http://www.tmuscle.com/portal_ includes/articles/2008/08-194-feature.html Silk, M. L., & Andrews, D. L. (2011). Toward a physical cultural studies. Sociology of Sport Journal, 28(1), 4–35. Silk, M. L., Andrews, D. L., & Thorpe, H. (2017). Introduction. In M. L. Silk, D. L. Andrews, & H. Thorpe (Eds.), Routledge handbook of physical cultural studies. Routledge. Slack, J. D. (1996). The theory and method of articulation in cultural studies. In Stuart Hall: Critical dialogues in cultural studies (pp. 112–127). Routledge.

28

S. E. EDMONDS

Washington, M. S., & Economides, M. (2015). Strong is the new sexy women, crossfit, and the postfeminist ideal. Journal of Sport & Social Issues. https:// doi.org/10.1177/0193723515615181 Webster, T. (2009). How we got here: CrossFit vs the fitness industry. The CrossFit Journal. Wiest, A. L., Andrews, D. L., & Giardina, M. D. (2015). Training the body for healthism: Reifying vitality in and through the clinical gaze of the neoliberal fitness club. Review of Education, Pedagogy, and Cultural Studies, 37 (1), 21– 40. Wilson, M. (2016). CrossFit brings lobbyists to its war on soda. http://thehill. com/business-a-lobbying/business-a-lobbying/308216-crossfit-brings-lobbyi sts-to-its-war-on-soda Wolf, R. (2009). The black box summit or how i got fired from the CrossFit nutrition certification. https://robbwolf.com/2009/11/24/the-black-boxsummit-or-how-i-got-fired-from-the-crossfit-nutrition-certification/

CrossFit’s Healthist Discourse and the Obesity Risk

Abstract In this chapter, I explore the ways in which CrossFit rearticulates notions of health and the fit body to include a wider variety of body types even as it promotes the CrossFit practice as a universal panacea for physical, mental, and social issues. CrossFit has been lauded for its more inclusive and instrumental-based approach to fitness and the fit body, particularly through the valorization of strong and muscular women. However, CrossFit also puts forth various narratives that credit CrossFit participation with curing everything from PTSD to surviving a lethal snake bite. In branding the CrossFit practice as the best solution, adherence to the CrossFit program becomes a new moral imperative in the context of the individualizing nature of neoliberalism. In raising the bar on individual expectation, I argue that CrossFit may be more healthist than it initially appears. Keywords CrossFit · Populism · Healthism · Responsibilitization · Bodywork

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2023 S. E. Edmonds, Make America Fit Again, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-6311-9_2

29

30

S. E. EDMONDS

In the current neoliberal moment, the cultural shift from governmental and social responsibility to individual responsibility (Blackman, 2008; Harvey, 2005) has similarly shifted the focus of power and power relations from an explicit external control of the body (through law or policy) to an implicit self-regulated control of the individual body (through cultural and social coercion) (Brown & Baker, 2012; Rose, 2001). Part of that neoliberalizing process has been the advent of healthism; a belief that, “… health can be managed and regulated through the decisions and choices one makes,” and therefore, “…places the burden of health management firmly within the hands of the individual” (Blackman, 2008, p. 99). These discourses place the onus for health-seeking behavior, and thereby proving good citizenship to the state, on the bodily decisions of the individual (Ayo, 2012; Lupton, 1997). Through the transition from health as a societal concern to health as a personal concern (Blackman, 2008), the body has become a site for an array of social, cultural, and moral signification that serves to differentiate “morally good” health-seeking citizens and “morally repugnant” unhealthy citizens (Crawford, 2006). In recent years, the increased focus on bodywork projects (Brace-Govan, 2002) that seek to develop specific aesthetic body types can be attributed to the ubiquitous neoliberal healthist discourses that individualize health. In modern healthist culture, “…people come to define themselves in part by how well they succeed or fail in adopting healthy practices and by the qualities of character or personality believed to support healthy behaviors. They assess others by the same criteria” (Crawford, 2006, p. 402). Therefore, healthist discourse becomes an embodied ideology that creates a power differential between those who seek “health-affirming” behaviors and those who appear to not do so. As part of the stratification of bodies and behaviors, the use of various risk discourses acts as a powerful form of control over people’s decisionmaking (Berlant, 2011; Rose, 2001). Rose argues that the use of healthist discourse around biological risk acts as a form of biopolitical power over populations. According to Rose (2001), “Risk here denotes a family of ways of thinking and acting, involving calculations about probable futures in the present followed by interventions into the present in order to control that potential future” (p. 7). Through the use of scientific experts, the notion of “risk thinking” has become a powerful apparatus for coercing and controlling the population by developing tools (such as Body Mass Index) that quickly and efficiently differentiate a “good”

CROSSFIT’S HEALTHIST DISCOURSE AND THE OBESITY RISK

31

body from a “risky” body (Rose, 2001). Using techniques of responsibilitization, the state seeks to encourage the individual to begin or change individual behaviors through their own personal efforts (Hannah-Moffat, 2001). As future risks of biological catastrophe are articulated as the accumulation of actions performed today, these risks are considered imminently preventable through present action. “Healthism, in this context, could be viewed as a subtle and systemic form of management and regulation where individuals are required to take on such unpredictable risks through becoming more self-managing and self-disciplining” (Blackman, 2008, p. 99). As such, healthist discourse serves as an apparatus of control that exerts power over the individual in their day-to-day actions and decisions. Since its inception, the modern fitness industry has been a site for individuals to perform healthist bodywork projects, particularly in response to contemporary moral panics around obesity. Through the obesity panic (Gard, 2011; Gard & Wright, 2005), the body, and particularly the obese body, has been articulated as a locus of biological and national catastrophe. The obese body is therefore read as a morally inferior body (Murray, 2008; Zanker & Gard, 2008) that is socially and culturally devalued (Cramer & Steinwert, 1998; Monaghan, 2008; Murray, 2008; Rothblum & Solovay, 2009). Within the context of the obesity discourse, and in particular the biological catastrophization of obesity, healthist neoliberal ideology shifts the responsibility to the individual. This shift allows for the stigmatizing and sociopolitical coercion of individual subjects (Puhl & Brownell, 2001; Puhl & Heuer, 2009, 2010; Rail et al., 2010). As the obese body increasingly becomes a symbolic marker of the failed neoliberal citizen (e.g. King-White et al., 2013; Monaghan, 2008; Murray, 2008), a body that has low body fat composition also becomes increasingly a signifier of the successful neoliberal citizen (Dworkin & Wachs, 2009; Hutson, 2013; Maguire, 2007; Wright et al., 2006; Zanker & Gard, 2008). Therefore, there is a dialectical and essential relationship that exists between discourses of the obesity panic and modern conceptualizations of the aesthetically fit body as a signifier of social and cultural status. In seeking to avoid the negative and social repercussions of the non-fit body, the contemporary fitness industry becomes a key site for the practice of a physical culture predicated on achieving the morally virtuous fit body prescribed by healthist cultural imperatives. The fitness industry capitalizes on this dialectical relationship between obese and fit, offering services

32

S. E. EDMONDS

and products designed to reduce visible body fat and therefore create more desirable bodies (Maguire, 2007; McKenzie, 2013; Pronger, 2002; Sassatelli, 1999, 2010). Personal trainers in particular are quite aware that one of the key services they provide is the production of bodies that hold symbolic capital in spaces other than the gyms within which they train (Maguire, 2001, 2008). Through the use of fitness spaces, “Fitness can act as a marker of status, a form of social capital, and a way to invest (and communicate investment) in one’s well being” (Powers & Greenwell, 2016, p. 14). Therefore, it can be argued that the modern fitness industry is designed to increase the social and cultural capital of individuals by providing services that support aesthetic bodywork projects that adhere to contemporary healthist discourses.

CrossFit and the Aesthetic Body While much of the fitness industry focuses on the development of aesthetic bodywork projects as an answer to healthist discourse, CrossFit differentiates itself from other organizations within the fitness industry by instead focusing on an instrumental and athletic understanding of health (Glassman, 2002c, 2007). As opposed to an aesthetic view of fitness focused on low body fat, Glassman (2002a) argues that, “the CrossFit view is that fitness and health are the same thing” (p. 3). CrossFit elaborates on its own definition of fitness by providing metrics of fitness based on standardized physical skills, athletic tasks, and effective use of the three metabolic energy systems (Glassman, 2002c). In contrast with the fitness industry’s capitalization on techniques that valorize an aesthetically fit body (Pronger, 2002), CrossFit discursively centers its body valuation on the instrumental ability of the body to perform functional tasks such as squatting and lifting objects overhead (Glassman, 2002c, 2007). Indeed, CrossFit’s focus on re-articulating fitness as an instrumental measurement designed to achieve high performance in the WOD moves away from engaging directly with the moral panic of the obesity epidemic. In Glassman’s (2002c) attempt to operationalize the CrossFit definition of fitness, body fat reduction is mentioned once, and only then to showcase that fat loss is one of many benefits associated with anaerobic physical activity. In reviewing the hundreds of videos and articles on the CrossFit Journal website, only a handful of content is directly focused on weight loss. Of the entries that do mention weight loss, they are inevitably about the terrible side effects of fad diets and the desire to move away from

CROSSFIT’S HEALTHIST DISCOURSE AND THE OBESITY RISK

33

fat loss goals and toward physical performance goals. As CrossFit Games qualifier Jamie Hagiya states on Instagram, My body does not look like all the other @crossfitgames female athletes with crazy ripped abs and zero body fat on their stomachs. I wish I could look like that, but I’ve come to the realization that this is my body. … But the bottom line is I need to eat to perform. I can’t worry about trying to look like a (Games) athlete because having a six pack doesn’t always make for the best athlete. (Achauer, 2016)

In these and other stories, body image is consistently downplayed in favor of performance. That being said, as alluded to in Hagiya’s post, many enter CrossFit precisely because of the physical images of athletic and toned bodies. It is important to note that many early adopters of CrossFit “discovered” CrossFit due to its connections with the Jim Jones gym: the fitness trainers responsible for the highly athletic and aesthetically objectified bodies present in the film 300 (Divine, 2011). Therefore, although CrossFit offers an instrumental alternative to healthist bodywork projects, individuals have sought out CrossFit in order to adhere to aesthetic healthist imperatives. Although it is likely that many individuals first chose to engage in CrossFit to create aesthetic bodywork projects to resemble the fit and athletic bodies popularized through CrossFit’s media (Knapp, 2015b), CrossFit as an organization focuses on the transformation of performance and well-being over the aesthetic. Given that performance of the WOD ritual is such a key component of the CrossFit subculture (Herz, 2014; Madden, 2014), and the aesthetic values of the modern gym are often described in terms of an evil “Other” (Glassman, 2002b), the discursive formation of CrossFit doesn’t condone the valorization of the aesthetically fit body outside of its connection with the instrumentally performative body. In fact, in promoted stories that describe a weight loss experience, they are inevitably accompanied by a discussion of improved performance. For example, in a CrossFit Journal article recounting the dramatic weight loss of Laura Lesinski, the article ends by stating, “After reaching her weight-loss goals, Lesinski has some new targets on the horizon. She’s up to 50 unbroken double-unders, and she’d like to get to 100. She wants to run a sub-8-minute mile, get a muscle-up and do a strict pull-up” (Achauer, 2011). Even when weight loss is arguably the

34

S. E. EDMONDS

main theme of a given narrative, it is always coupled with the performative instrumental body. Similarly, in remembering a discussion with a fellow CrossFitter, Madden (2014) recounts the impassioned CrossFitter proclaiming, “‘I’ve lost fifteen fucking pounds!’ he crowed. ‘My shirts don’t fit me anymore. I’m crushing my pickup basketball game’” (p. 78). In this case and others, weight loss is paired with an instrumental effect of the bodily transformation. CrossFit practitioners may have initially joined in order to perform bodywork projects intended to build aesthetic symbolic power, but many who stay in CrossFit shift their focus and goals to more closely align with CrossFit’s re-articulation of fitness as an instrumental project (Achauer, 2016; Belger, 2012; Herz, 2014). CrossFit’s de-emphasis on body composition and emphasis on the potential to transform the function of the body is a consistent theme throughout the organization. CrossFit’s focus on developing instrumental body projects has developed new subjectivities among its members that resist the dominant healthist discourses that position the aesthetic body as the superior marker of health. These new subjectivities provide psychic resources and social networks that have liberatory potential for participants, particularly women. For example, Bennett et al. (2022) argue that while, “…CrossFit does tend to promote a certain “type” of CrossFit body … [participants] have come to recognize that viewing their personal body transformation through their own individual lens has helped them adopt a new ideal for their body; one that is appreciative of their functional, powerful features” (p. 14). In re-articulating the “ideal” body from aesthetic to instrumental, women develop the capacity to resist dominant ideology, and perhaps avoid some of the deleterious effects that aesthetic-focused healthism creates. Additionally, through the CrossFit practice women develop new social networks that provide a buffer against criticism for not having a slim “ideal” woman body. “Though they remain surrounded by family, friends, and even media messaging that promote warped images praising the thin ideal, these women agentically seek out supportive networks that help them maintain their focus on positive self-reflections, and they consciously monitor the way that their own interactions with others, especially children, can serve to shape a future in which women’s muscularity is normalized” (Malcom et al., 2021, pp. 9–10). Instead of the slim “ideal” woman body found in dominant healthist discourse, within CrossFit a more muscular body that is capable of instrumental

CROSSFIT’S HEALTHIST DISCOURSE AND THE OBESITY RISK

35

activity is valued. As James and Gill (2018) argue “…CrossFit emphasizes building muscle mass amongst all members, regardless of biological sex. Although CrossFit discourse does distinguish between women and men…. it nonetheless appears to embrace a stronger, more muscular female physique” (p. 718). Through changes in individual subjectivity and the development of new social networks, CrossFit offers a liberatory potential to resist aesthetic healthist body ideals, particularly for women. Unfortunately, even though CrossFit as an organization advocates for the re-articulation of fitness to performance-based goals, the branding of CrossFit still relies on the valorization of aesthetically fit bodies to showcase its efficacy as a program. Washington and Economides’ (2015) analysis of images of women on CrossFit’s YouTube channel found that “CrossFit’s discourse on its ideal participant interpellates very specific kinds of women. These women are not too old, already or formerly very active, overwhelmingly White, and have access to the resources needed to be successful, especially money, time, and energy” (p. 13). Similarly, Knapp’s (2015a) media analysis of The CrossFit Journal found that many images of men reinforced norms of hegemonic masculinity. Even as CrossFit advocates for a re-articulation of fitness and the fit body with instrumental measures, it reproduces the valorization of aesthetic bodies that hold value in contemporary healthist discourse. Washington and Economides (2015) point to this paradox when examining the video profile of a popular CrossFit athlete that, “demonstrates the tension that underlies how (CrossFit) markets itself, relying on … the ‘pornification of fitness,’ while castigating other fitness trends for doing the same. Here CrossFit emphasizes the appeal, particularly the sexual appeal of a fit body, rather than its function” (p. 8). While both studies found resistance to dominant depictions of masculinity and femininity within CrossFit, CrossFit is still complicit with the aesthetically driven obesity discourse even as it resists typical representations of the body. In reinforcing the aesthetically driven healthist body discourse in combination with the addition of an instrumental body discourse, CrossFit encourages the development of a subjectivity that believes the aesthetic body can be developed unproblematically as a direct result of adherence to the CrossFit practice.

36

S. E. EDMONDS

CrossFit and the Universal Panacea Even in the move from perception of the body to performance of the body, CrossFit retains elements of the neoliberal healthist narrative; particularly the idea that good health can be accomplished unproblematically by making good (aka morally responsible) choices and exercising individual responsibility. In what perhaps can be conceptualized as an inversion of the obesity panic, which requires the avoidance of body fat as a marker of virtuous health behavior (Hoverd, 2004), CrossFit instead defines virtuous health behavior as the continuous pursuit of CrossFit’s particular version of fitness. Similar to the prevention of the obese body, the pursuit of the fit CrossFit body requires the constant management and maintenance of the body in order to be perceived as morally virtuous. Although CrossFit doesn’t use the fat body in obesity discourse as a differentiator of moral value, it still retains the valuation of individuals based on their health-seeking behaviors; in particular the engagement with the CrossFit practice. CrossFit’s use of fitness narratives that explicate the health benefits of the CrossFit practice, combined with stories of survival and rehabilitation, form a powerful discourse in which individuals are compelled to adopt the CrossFit practice in order to signify moral worth. In articulating CrossFit with discourses of health and fitness, CrossFit presents itself as a health-seeking behavior that has curative properties. Throughout the CrossFit Journal, the CrossFit practice has been situated as a palliative to everything from diabetes and high blood pressure (Cecil, 2016c) to mental health conditions such as anxiety and autism (Cecil, 2016c; Cooper, 2014). In particular, the “fitness” derived from the CrossFit practice is continuously recounted as the reason for overcoming significant physical ailments. Timmon Lund points to the practice of CrossFit, as well as the support of his CrossFit coach, in successfully overcoming Hodgkin’s lymphoma. “In hindsight—I’m not saying that CrossFit cured my cancer or anything like that—but I know in my heart that it kept me healthy enough to keep me alive to get that medicine” (Cecil, 2016b). Stephen Walker’s recovery following a near-death brain infection was described similarly; “‘There’s no question in my mind,’ Petruska said, that Walker survived the near-death experience because of his fitness. And, Petruska added, because of St. Mary’s medical care” (Cecil, 2016a). In these and other narratives, the CrossFit practice is central to the ability of individuals to overcome personal health issues. Although different narratives are more or less cautious in directly and

CROSSFIT’S HEALTHIST DISCOURSE AND THE OBESITY RISK

37

explicitly connecting the CrossFit practice to the recovery and survival of these individuals, the relationship is implicitly evident: the type of fitness developed through the CrossFit practice is articulated as a way in which individuals have successfully managed their individual health in order to survive potentially fatal physical disease risks. In addition to the narratives that focus on survival through a singular traumatic experience, the CrossFit practice is also central in stories of recovery and rehabilitation. For example, the narrative of Michael Gonzales tells the story of a former prison inmate and drug addict who has found recovery and rehabilitation through, in part, the intense exercise routine of CrossFit. “‘CrossFit gives me an outlet,’ Gonzales said. ‘It means the world to me. Without it, I would be using and back in jail’” (Achauer, 2014, p. 3). While the article is quick to point out that CrossFit is but one of many things that Gonzales does to remain off drugs and out of jail, the words attributed to Gonzales point directly to the CrossFit practice as the crux of his recovery. Gonzales’ narrative centers the CrossFit practice on the transformation of Gonzales from a non-productive addict to a successful productive citizen. In other CrossFit Journal articles, CrossFit is presented as a way for returning military soldiers to combat their PTSD (Cooper, 2015). In describing CrossFit’s profound effect on dealing with his PTSD, Vietnam veteran David Lochelt recounts how CrossFit helped him in ways that other solutions did not. “‘I’m not going to mess with it. I just know it works. It’s not a cure, but it’s amazing what it does for me,’ Lochelt said. ‘They (the VA) put lots of people on antidepressants, but I’m going to CrossFit. That’s what I say’” (Cooper, 2015, p. 6). Again, while these narratives are quick to mention that the CrossFit practice was but one part of a larger network of rehabilitative and recovery services, the quotes used within the articles point more directly toward the centrality of the CrossFit practice in the success of the individual. Taken together, these narratives of recovery and perseverance through the use of the CrossFit practice situate CrossFit as an ideal self-managed health-seeking behavior that signifies moral virtue. In developing the narrative that CrossFit is a panacea for social, psychological, and physiological ills, CrossFit situates itself as a populist response to “unknown and unknowable” health risks. Although each narrative includes non-CrossFit experts as part of the story, the CrossFit practice is central to the story’s happy ending. As with other populist movements, the in-group knowledge acquired in and through CrossFit is considered superior to the knowledge of “elites” from the medical and psychiatric communities.

38

S. E. EDMONDS

CrossFit Raises the Bar on Individual Responsibilitization Within the context of the CrossFit practice, the performance of the WOD acts as an indicator of moral virtuosity and the performance of ideal health-seeking behavior. In the same way that regular participation in physical activity acts as a social and cultural marker of the desire to pursue the healthist imperative of individualized health-seeking behavior (Powers & Greenwell, 2016), participation in the WOD is similarly articulated as a desire to pursue health-seeking behavior. Part of the core principles that inform the CrossFit practice is the belief that the WOD can be scaled to the ability of the individual; indicating that participation in fitness, like participation in fat loss, can be unproblematically achieved regardless of the context of the individual. Glassman contends that in CrossFit, “We scale load and intensity; we don’t change the program. The needs of Olympic athletes and our grandparents differ by degree, not kind” (www.crossfit.com). Since WODs can arguably be scaled to the performance ability of the individual, the act of not becoming fit is perceived as an individual choice to flagrantly ignore individual personal development. Therefore, those who do not participate in the performance of the WOD are interpellated as individuals who do not care about their personal health. As Crawford (1980) asserts when discussing healthism, “…as health becomes a super-value, those who fail to seek it become near pariahs” (p. 379). CrossFit’s differentiation of health-seeking behavior based on fitness (instead of fatness) raises the social and cultural expectations for a performative form of healthism; creating hierarchies between those who value and practice CrossFit’s specific brand of fitness and those who do not. This raised expectation of performative fitness prescribed by CrossFit is most evident in the case of what CrossFit calls “adaptive athletes.” Adaptive athletes are individuals who participate in CrossFit but have significant physical or mental impairments that impede their ability to perform the WOD as prescribed. Like the narratives of overcoming and rehabilitation that are written to inspire individuals to pursue CrossFit fitness as a palliative to social, psychological, and physical challenges, narratives of adaptive athletes showcase how CrossFit allows those who are impaired to achieve fitness through hard work and dedication. CrossFit Coach Dave Wallach argues that CrossFit’s adaptive athletes truly emulate the scalability of the WOD, stating that, “It’s their capacity to adapt and overcome

CROSSFIT’S HEALTHIST DISCOURSE AND THE OBESITY RISK

39

far greater than any of what we would call able-bodied athletes that puts them above and beyond any of the commitment, any of the focus and any of the achievement that I’ve ever seen done by an athlete that has all their limbs” (Roberts, 2013). Such valorization of the disabled body acts as a form of “inspiration porn” to drive able-bodied individuals to perform harder in the WOD (Grue, 2016). This is most clearly illustrated in a CrossFit Journal column on avoiding excuses to perform the WOD, with the author arguing that, “Adaptive athletes are proof that limitations are self-imposed only” (Warkentin, 2016). In using the disabled body as “inspiration” for the able bodied, the CrossFit discourse further implies that there should be no barriers to participation in the WOD. The use of adaptive athletes communicates to able-bodied individuals that any body, regardless of circumstance, can and should pursue the CrossFit form of performative fitness. Instead of biopolitical control through the obesity discourse of catastrophic biological risk, CrossFit’s version of fitness is imbricated in healthist ideology that presents good health as a personal choice that should be unburdened by social, cultural, economic, or physical “excuses.” It follows then that if CrossFit is scalable to any ability, and it has such profound effects on the body, that those who do not participate in CrossFit are actively choosing to have ill health. In arguing the need to create a home gym, Glassman (2002b) polemically asserts that fitness should be economically prioritized, stating that, “If your living room, bedrooms, kitchen, or dining room are well appointed there’s no substance to the argument that you cannot afford your own gym, unless your health and fitness are lesser priorities than your leisure and entertainment” (p. 10). In prioritizing fitness and articulating it as an individual responsibility, Glassman’s arguments reinforce the responsibilization of the individual prescribed under neoliberal regimes and operationalized through healthist discourse.

Conclusion CrossFit’s articulation with dominant healthist discourses that valorize the aesthetically fit body is both complicated and paradoxical. While CrossFit’s shift from aesthetic to instrumental bodywork projects resists some elements of dominant healthist ideology, in many ways it sets a higher threshold for health-seeking performance by requiring constant body management through CrossFit-provided practices. Furthermore,

40

S. E. EDMONDS

the focus on instrumental bodywork has the potential to be liberatory, particularly for women, but that liberatory potential is confounded by a continued reliance on aesthetically “acceptable” bodies in CrossFit’s promotional materials. Finally, while CrossFit has undoubtedly changed lives and improved some people’s physical health, CrossFit’s presentation as a universal curative for social, psychological, and physical ills drives a populist subjectivity that centers CrossFit-generated knowledge above medical and psychiatric professionals.

References Achauer, H. (2011). Breaking the cycle. The CrossFit Journal. Achauer, H. (2014). Sweat and sobriety. The CrossFit Journal, 1–5. Achauer, H. (2016). Look your personal best. The CrossFit Journal. Ayo, N. (2012). Understanding health promotion in a neoliberal climate and the making of health conscious citizens. Critical Public Health, 22(1), 99–105. Belger, A. W. (2012). The power of community: CrossFit and the force of human connection. Victory Belt Pub. Incorporated. Bennett, H., Hauff, C., Gipson, C., & Malcom, N. (2022). “CrossFit has proven you can be muscular and still be feminine”: Exploring comparative practices within CrossFit. Journal of Sport Behavior, 45(3), 1–16. Berlant, L. G. (2011). Cruel optimism. Duke University Press. Blackman, L. (2008). The body: The key concepts. Berg. Brace-Govan, J. (2002). Looking at bodywork women and three physical activities. Journal of Sport & Social Issues, 26(4), 403–420. Brown, B. J., & Baker, S. (2012). Responsible citizens: Individuals, health, and policy under neoliberalism. Anthem Press. Cecil, A. M. (2016a). CrossFit lifeguard: Stephen Walker. The CrossFit Journal. Cecil, A. M. (2016b). Happy to be last and alive. The CrossFit Journal. Cecil, A. M. (2016c). Physician: “He’s basically cured his diabetes”. The CrossFit Journal, 1–3. Cooper, C. (2014). Rewired by the WOD? The CrossFit Journal, 1–7. Cooper, C. (2015). Enemy unseen. The CrossFit Journal. Cramer, P., & Steinwert, T. (1998). Thin is good, fat is bad: How early does it begin? Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 19(3), 429–451. https:// doi.org/10.1016/s0193-3973(99)80049-5 Crawford, R. (1980). Healthism and the medicalization of everyday life. International Journal of Health Services, 10(3), 365–388. Crawford, R. (2006). Health as a meaningful social practice. Health, 10(4), 401– 420.

CROSSFIT’S HEALTHIST DISCOURSE AND THE OBESITY RISK

41

Divine, M. (2011). Ex-CrossFit devotees take new gyms to the next level. http:// sealfit.com/ex-crossfit-devotees-take-new-gyms-to-the-next-level/ Dworkin, S. L., & Wachs, F. L. (2009). Body panic: Gender, health, and the selling of fitness. New York University Press. Gard, M. (2011). The end of the obesity epidemic. Routledge. Gard, M., & Wright, J. (2005). The obesity epidemic: Science, morality, and ideology. Routledge. Glassman, G. (2002a). Foundations. The CrossFit Journal (1), 1–8. Glassman, G. (2002b). The garage gym. The CrossFit Journal (2), 1–12. Glassman, G. (2002c). What is fitness. The CrossFit Journal, 1(3), 1–11. Glassman, G. (2007). Understanding CrossFit. The CrossFit Journal (56), 1–2. Grue, J. (2016). The problem with inspiration porn: A tentative definition and a provisional critique. Disability & Society, 31(6), 838–849. Hannah-Moffat, K. (2001). Punishment in disguise: Penal governance and federal imprisonment of women in Canada. University of Toronto Press. Harvey, D. (2005). A brief history of neoliberalism. Oxford University Press. Herz, J. C. (2014). Learning to breathe fire: The rise of CrossFit and the primal future of fitness. Three Rivers Press. Hoverd, W. J. (2004). Working out my salvation: The contemporary gym and the promise of “self” transformation. Sport, Culture & Society Series-Sport, Culture & Society Series. Meyer & Meyer Verlag. Hutson, D. J. (2013). “Your body is your business card”: Bodily capital and health authority in the fitness industry. Social Science & Medicine, 90, 63–71. James, E. P., & Gill, R. (2018). Neoliberalism and the communicative labor of CrossFit. Communication & Sport, 6(6), 703–727. King-White, R., Newman, J. I., & Giardina, M. D. (2013). Articulating fatness: Obesity and the scientific tautologies of bodily accumulation in neoliberal times. Review of Education, Pedagogy, and Cultural Studies, 35(2), 79–102. https://doi.org/10.1080/10714413.2013.778657 Knapp, B. A. (2015a). Gender representation in the CrossFit Journal: A content analysis. Sport in Society, 18(6), 688–703. Knapp, B. A. (2015b). Rx’d and shirtless: An examination of gender in a CrossFit box. Women in Sport and Physical Activity Journal, 23(1), 42–53. Lupton, D. (1997). Foucault and the medicalisation critique. In Foucault, health and medicine (pp. 94–110). Routledge. Madden, S. (2014). Embrace the suck: What I learned at the box about hard work, (very) sore muscles, and burpees before sunrise. HarperWave, an imprint of HarperCollins Publishers. Maguire, J. S. (2001). Fit and flexible: The fitness industry, personal trainers and emotional service labor. Sociology of Sport Journal, 18, 379–402. Maguire, J. S. (2007). Fit for consumption: Sociology and the business of fitness. Routledge.

42

S. E. EDMONDS

Maguire, J. S. (2008). The personal is professional: Personal trainers as a case study of cultural intermediaries. International Journal of Cultural Studies, 11(2), 211–229. Malcom, N. L., Edmonds, S., Gipson, C., Hauff, C., & Bennett, H. (2021). Negotiating the funhouse: CrossFit women and the looking glass athlete. Women in Sport and Physical Activity Journal, 29(2), 95–105. McKenzie, S. (2013). Getting physical: The rise of fitness culture in America. University Press of Kansas Lawrence. Monaghan, L. F. (2008). Men, physical activity, and the obesity discourse: Critical understandings from a qualitative study. Sociology of Sport Journal, 25(1), 97–129. Murray, S. (2008). Pathologizing “fatness”: Medical authority and popular culture. Sociology of Sport Journal, 25, 7–21. n.a. (n.d.). www.crossfit.com Powers, D., & Greenwell, D. (2016). Branded fitness: Exercise and promotional culture. Journal of Consumer Culture, 17 (3), 523–541. Pronger, B. (2002). Body fascism: Salvation in the technology of physical fitness. University of Toronto Press. Puhl, R., & Brownell, K. D. (2001). Bias, discrimination, and obesity. Obesity, 9(12), 788–805. Puhl, R. M., & Heuer, C. A. (2009). The stigma of obesity: A review and update. Obesity, 17 (5), 941–964. Puhl, R. M., & Heuer, C. A. (2010). Obesity stigma: Important considerations for public health. American Journal of Public Health, 100(6), 1019–1028. Rail, G., Holmes, D., & Murray, S. J. (2010). The politics of evidence on ‘domestic terrorists’: Obesity discourses and their effects. Social Theory & Health, 8(3), 259–279. Roberts, G. (2013). Evolution of adaptation. The CrossFit Journal. Rose, N. (2001). The politics of life itself. Theory, Culture & Society, 18(6), 1–30. Rothblum, E. D., & Solovay, S. (2009). The fat studies reader. New York Unviersity Press. Sassatelli, R. (1999). Interaction order and beyond: A field analysis of body culture within fitness gyms. Body & Society, 5(2–3), 227–248. https://doi. org/10.1177/1357034x99005002013 Sassatelli, R. (2010). Fitness culture: Gyms and the commercialisation of discipline and fun. Palgrave Macmillan. Warkentin, M. (2016). Lose your crutches. The CrossFit Journal, 1–4. Washington, M. S., & Economides, M. (2015). Strong is the new sexy women, crossfit, and the postfeminist ideal. Journal of Sport & Social Issues. https:// doi.org/10.1177/0193723515615181

CROSSFIT’S HEALTHIST DISCOURSE AND THE OBESITY RISK

43

Wright, J., O’Flynn, G., & Macdonald, D. (2006). Being fit and looking healthy: Young women’s and men’s constructions of health and fitness. Sex Roles, 54(9–10), 707–716. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-006-9036-9 Zanker, C., & Gard, M. (2008). Fatness, fitness, and the moral universe of sport and physical activity. Sociology of Sport Journal, 25(1), 48–65.

CrossFit and Survivalism

Abstract CrossFit’s former leader and co-founder Greg Glassman argued that CrossFit participation prepared its adherents for the “unknown and unknowable”—the unplanned and unanticipated problems in life. In this and other ways, CrossFit presents itself as a solution to the constant sense of precarity associated with what Beck (1999) describes as modern risk discourse. In this chapter, I look at the ways in which CrossFit articulates with various discourses associated with the survivalist movement and provides a branded populist solution to modern existential risks. From the utilitarian space of the CrossFit box to CrossFit’s explicit distrust and repudiation of established authority, CrossFit puts forward a hyperindividualized solution to prepare its adherents for amorphous future potential threats. While this may provide a sense of agency for individuals, this survivalist ideology can isolate participants from broader information networks and authorities even as it contributes to the development of hyper-individualistic and populist subjectivities. Keywords CrossFit · Populism · Survivalism · Preppers · Zombie apocalypse

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2023 S. E. Edmonds, Make America Fit Again, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-6311-9_3

45

46

S. E. EDMONDS

In re-articulating healthist discourse of the fit and morally virtuous body with the eugenic legacy of Darwinian “survival of the fittest,” CrossFit articulates with key elements of the survivalist movement. In particular, CrossFit’s emphasis on individual preparation for an uncertain future articulates with the survivalist neoliberal project of apocalypse preparation. Additionally, CrossFit’s concept of “primal fitness” and antagonistic resistance to authority articulate with the anti-technology and antigovernment stances found in the survivalist community. In many ways, the CrossFit subculture taps into the burgeoning survivalist subculture, as both present solutions to the growing sense of anxiety felt in an ever more precarious geopolitical climate. Although CrossFit defines fitness in contrast to the aesthetic and visible bodily markers valorized in healthist discourse, CrossFit’s definition of fitness is instead conjoined with discourses of fitness that have historically been linked with national virility and military force. From crowning the “Fittest Man (and Woman) on Earth” at the annual CrossFit games to CrossFit’s repeated focus on preparing its adherents for the “unknown and unknowable,” CrossFit taps in to Darwinian and eugenic definitions of fitness that were prominent at the turn of the twentieth century (Walsh, 2020). Whether it was the concept of fitness in social and cultural campaigns of eugenically informed nationalism (Pernick, 1997) or Woodrow Wilson’s physical activity reforms that sought to improve national (military) health (Swanson & Spears, 1995), twentieth-century definitions of fitness were firmly rooted in the Darwinian theories of population survival. Whether it was depicted as the healthy body which would economically and socially advance the survival of the nation or the militarized healthy body that would defend and protect the nation, the fit body was articulated as what the body could do in service of the nation (McKenzie, 2013). Therefore, even as CrossFit’s redefinition of fitness centers the body as a place for instrumental physical performance over aesthetic worth (i.e. avoidance of obesity), the context out of which CrossFit’s survival of the fittest mentality arises is similarly connected with the health of the nation. Developing out of Cold War tensions and strengthened by the threat of technopolitical disaster in the wake of the Y2K panic (Kabel & Chmidling, 2014; Lamy, 1996), the survivalist movement has grown in the face of increased precarity and the omnipresent threat of geopolitical catastrophe. From political anxieties related to the ongoing war on terror and the high visibility of mass shootings to economic anxieties brought

CROSSFIT AND SURVIVALISM

47

about by the great recession in the late 2000s, many in the United States and elsewhere have grown increasingly anxious about the future. Berlant (2011) argues that, “…the present moment increasingly imposes itself on consciousness as a moment in extended crisis, with one happening piling on another… an intensified situation in which extensive threats to survival are said to dominate the reproduction of life” (p. 7). These anxieties of the future are often compounded by politically and commercially driven media discourses that dramatize a precarious future. As Stallings (1990) argues, “News organizations bring us into contact with people who, in telling us about an event, invite us to see greater risks than we thought we knew, a world less safe than we assumed” (p. 91). It is out of the anxieties of a potentially disastrous geopolitical catastrophe that the survivalist subculture has emerged and grown. Like healthist ideology, the survivalist movement is inextricably linked to neoliberal discourses of individualized responsibility. According to Lamy (1996), the apocalyptic future envisioned by survivalists is a secular appropriation of salvation-based religious reckonings. Instead of an omnipresent religious entity separating the righteous from the corrupt, those who survive are, “…individuals and groups who have honed the ‘survival-of-the-fittest’ instinct and ideology” (Lamy, 1996, p. 89). This ideological shift from theological doom to a Darwinian fight for survival informs the survivalist’s moral imperative to develop, “…individual responsibility to provide for oneself and one’s family in the event of a disaster…” (Kabel & Chmidling, 2014, p. 259). In preparing to survive the apocalypse, the neoliberal individual becomes responsible for their own health, and ultimately their own salvation. As Preston (2010) finds, “…there has been a shift from a collective approach to disaster education (using community learning and family activities) towards a more individuated and privatized approach” (p. 337). As part of the transition from religious to secular apocalypse responses, disaster preparedness and survivalism have slowly become privatized, individualized, and capitalized through neoliberal ideologies of individual responsibility. “Per the American cultural tropes of self-realization, individuals are limited only by their personal, weakest link; one’s survival depends on one’s own resources and limits… survival demands personal preparedness” (Hejtmanek, 2020, p. 866). CrossFit offers an individualized and privatized program for individuals to work on their “weaknesses” (Nash, 2018) in order to prepare for an uncertain future.

48

S. E. EDMONDS

CrossFit and the Uncertain Future While CrossFit is arguably not a survivalist organization in a traditional sense, it does use and embrace some aspects of a survivalist philosophy as part of its own branded ethos. CrossFitters are encouraged to prepare for the future not by stockpiling weapons or hoarding food supplies, but instead by performing bodywork projects that develop an instrumentally performative body that can handle the psychological and physiological stresses of an uncertain future. It is in articulation with growing risk discourses, and the associated affective feelings of precarity, that CrossFit seeks to prepare its constituents for future catastrophe. CrossFit positions itself as a way of mitigating future threats by preparing participants for the “unknown and unknowable” (Glassman, 2007). For Glassman, the unknown and unknowable are the potential risks of the future for which we can never truly be prepared. Through the constant variation found in the CrossFit WOD, CrossFit practitioners “overcome” new challenges and steel their bodies in preparation for these future unknown and unknowable moments. As Thompson and Isisag (2022) found, “… CrossFitters view physically demanding risk-taking challenges as a means to prepare for unknown and unknowable challenges” (p. 325). CrossFit WODs are designed to incorporate constant variation in order to develop, “…the broadest scope of athletic ability that one might need to tap into when it’s a matter of life and death” (Murphy, 2012, p. 33). By participating in the CrossFit WOD, CrossFit offers a way to “control” the body and prepare for the (inevitable) risks of the future, from mundane to apocalyptic. Heywood (2015) argues that, “…CrossFit culture takes itself very seriously, seeing itself as doing nothing less than facilitating its participants’ survival, training them to be ever-vigilant, engaged in constant self-improvement in terms of that survivability” (p. 33). In preparing participants for the unknown and unknowable, CrossFit functions as more than just a site for physically addressing the potential risks of the unhealthy body: it is also a site for symbolically and physically preparing for future geopolitical and environmental risks. A key site in which survival narratives are utilized and reinforced within CrossFit is through The CrossFit Journal. Through the series of articles known as “Lifeguards,” The CrossFit Journal recounts instances wherein training with CrossFit helped individuals survive potentially deadly circumstances. For example, the narrative of marine CrossFitter Anthony Kemp details how Kemp was bitten by a venomous snake during

CROSSFIT AND SURVIVALISM

49

a hiking expedition. Several miles into the mountains, Kemp had to walk back to emergency services as he became slowly paralyzed by the snake venom. Kemp argues that it was only through his training in CrossFit, and by envisioning the trek out of the mountains as a particularly difficult WOD, that he was able to reach paramedics. Although Kemp required a leg amputation and nearly died from the venom, he returned to his CrossFit practice several months later (Cecil, 2016). In narratives such as Kemp’s, CrossFit is unique as a method for preparing for and facing the psychological and physiological potential risks of the “unknown and unknowable.” CrossFit’s use of the survival narrative throughout The CrossFit Journal serves to reinforce the idea that survival within the CrossFit WOD is indeed a matter of life and death. In providing a method (the CrossFit WOD) to prepare for the “unknown and unknowable,” CrossFit provides a tangible physical cultural practice that fulfills the needs of the survivalist subculture. Within The CrossFit Journal, “Lifeguard” narratives are meant to be inspiring, encouraging individuals to work harder and train better in case they find themselves in unfortunate conditions. As discussed in Chapter 2, participation in the WOD is a central factor in the success of individuals in regard to past, present, and future calamities.

CrossFit and Anti-technology One way in which CrossFit articulates with the survivalist subculture is in its resistance to technology. Within the survivalist subculture, part of the preparation for a post-apocalyptic world is anticipating a life without modern technology (Kabel & Chmidling, 2014; Lamy, 1996). Indeed, Tapia (2003) claims that, “…for the survivalist, technology dulled one’s survivalist skills and lulled one into complacency” (p. 496). Similarly, CrossFit sees the machines found in the modern gym as obstacles to effective physical performance (Glassman, 2002). That being said, in preparing for the coming breakdown of society, and the concomitant loss of resources, the survivalist movement remains entangled with healthist discourses that demand a focus on physical health. As Kabel and Chmidling (2014) argue, “the present day [survivalist] movement extends and expands Y2K anxiety over societal shutdown and distrust of government as it responds to the moral imperative for health seeking and cultural framing of health as an achievement” (p. 259). These health-seeking behaviors involve preparing the body for an ever-precarious future, when

50

S. E. EDMONDS

there will be no government or technology to support the populace. CrossFit provides a physical cultural space whereby individuals can practice bodily self-management through the use of “primal” fitness in a space that relies on minimalist and often improvised equipment. Through the CrossFit practice, and the space of the box, CrossFit participants are directed to “return to” a “primal” past where technology is absent. The driving force behind CrossFit’s approach to physical activity is a concept described as “primal fitness.” Glassman (2009) explains that, “‘Primal fitness’ is about accomplishing tasks in life. If you can’t move your body in a functional way, you aren’t going to be very good at life— or CrossFit” (p. 1). In Glassman’s view, the fit and healthy body is one that can accomplish tasks of daily living. By focusing on “functional” fitness, the body created in and through CrossFit is one that is instrumentally more proficient; a body that is valorized within the survivalist community. Additionally, the way in which Glassman articulates primal fitness as a way to make the body “good at life” is rooted in naturalistic assumptions around the body and what the body can do. These naturalistic assumptions nostalgically speak to an original body that exists outside of (and before) modernity (Blackman, 2008). In defining CrossFit’s fitness philosophy as “primal,” Glassman provides a vision of fitness that is important to the survivalist community, particularly as it calls upon naturalistic assumptions of the body that are rooted in Darwinian notions of survival of the fittest, and consequently the survival of the population. Glassman’s vision of primal fitness is in many ways embodied through the construction of space within the CrossFit box. Boxes are designed in reaction to the hyper-technological spaces of the contemporary gym, and participants eschew the use of technology even as they valorize the “traditional” and “improvised” equipment that populates a typical box (Herz, 2014). The CrossFit box is considered a no-frills space, where typical commercial gym amenities such as televisions, exercise machines, and shower facilities are frequently absent. In “stripping down” the box to the most basic elements necessary for exercise performance, the CrossFit box reinforces a minimalist and “primal” idea of what is necessary for performance. Glassman’s (2002) recommendations for the creation of a box involve the incorporation of improvised, recycled, and non-traditional physical activity implements—similar to the way in which survivalists develop skills intended to re-appropriate spaces and equipment in the event of a catastrophe (Kabel & Chmidling, 2014). In a post-apocalyptic future, Glassman’s recommendation for a garage gym could easily form the basis of a survivalist fitness facility.

CROSSFIT AND SURVIVALISM

51

CrossFit and Surviving the Zombie Apocalypse Another way that CrossFit is articulated with survivalism is through the use of the zombie apocalypse metaphor. The role of survivalism in the CrossFit practice is centered on the idea that the fit body, as prescribed by CrossFit dogma, will prepare individuals for not only personal resilience but also for the dire and apocalyptic risks envisioned by survivalist discourses. This apocalypse risk discourse is given tangible and fantastical form through CrossFit’s repeated invocation of the zombie apocalypse. According to Hejtmanek (2020), “The ‘zombie apocalypse’ is a current, secular metaphor representing the total breakdown of technological modernity and transnational capitalism, the global failure of social, economic, and technological networks” (p. 865). Although survivalists are more seriously preparing for a tangible and imminent breakdown of society, within CrossFit, the zombie apocalypse discourse is used as a tongue-in-cheek embodiment of the unknown and unknowable. However, the end result is quite similar—CrossFit uses the zombie apocalypse metaphor to delineate between “well-prepared” instrumentally fit bodies and those who are victims of the apocalypse. Additionally, the idea of a post-societal return to the basics of life is seen as a potential positive in CrossFit and aligns with CrossFit’s concept of “primal fitness.” The zombie apocalypse metaphor appears in several publications from CrossFit. In a humorous article in The CrossFit Journal, author Andréa Maria Cecil warns of the looming Zombie Apocalypse. As she assembles her Zombie Apocalypse team, it consists predominantly of well-known CrossFit athletes and CrossFit Games competitors. She concludes the article by stating, “nonetheless, I continue to accept applications for Zombie Apocalypse Team members. The non-fit need not apply [emphasis added]” (Cecil, 2011, p. 5). Cecil articulates the fit body as the successful body in the context of an apocalyptic future, and through the narrative articulates the CrossFit body as the body of superior fitness. The theme of the zombie apocalypse is also used as a fantastical scenario to encourage youth to participate in CrossFit. The CrossFit Journal posted zombiethemed WOD guidelines for CrossFit Kids classes that advertised, “by imitating and escaping the undead, your kids will avoid becoming unfit [emphasis added]” (Martin, 2014). In both articles, the central use of the zombie apocalypse metaphor is to differentiate between the “fit” and the “unfit.”

52

S. E. EDMONDS

Through the use of the zombie apocalypse, CrossFit furthers a narrative of survivalism that positions the fit CrossFitter as capable of handling potential geopolitical disasters. The fit body is articulated as the ability to overcome imagined doomsday scenarios, and the CrossFit fit body is the optimal solution for survival. Through the articulation of the fit CrossFit body with the fitness to survive an apocalypse, CrossFit raises the stakes on the symbolic morality associated with healthist bodywork. By placing the onus on the individual to fortify the body and mind against the potential apocalyptic dangers, the CrossFit narrative of the “unknown and unknowable” serves to reinforce neoliberal and healthist ideology in ways that are congruent with values found in the survivalist subculture (Kabel & Chmidling, 2014). Stated differently, if one chooses not to develop a fit CrossFit body, they have only themselves to blame when catastrophe occurs. However, this metaphor is also used in a somewhat positive way. For example, in a CrossFit Journal story covering the CrossFit Kids Gauntlet of 2012 author Dan Edelman used the metaphor of the zombie apocalypse to convey the social media silence and simplified focus that is achieved during the gauntlet. The zombie apocalypse harkens back to a (mostly delusional) simpler time. The chaos of breakdown sweeps away the technological instantaneity and perpetual and dizzying sociopolitical machinations characterizing almost all our (inter)actions. We no longer worry about absolutely, positively getting there overnight. We no longer project power. We hunker down, dig in and hide behind heavily fortified battlements. Like in days of yore. Norms, mores and rules no longer apply; social life is suspended. We enter a liminal state. Media-free reality returns. Everything is stripped down to one fundamental issue: survival. Our problems are simple, as in basic. And they are embodied in the slow, guileless, inexorable (dis)figure of the zombie. (Edelman, 2012)

For CrossFitters the zombie apocalypse is not inherently bad. It is both a challenge that the CrossFit body can readily overcome, and also a situation in which everyday distractions are removed and only the “important” things remain. Even though the zombie apocalypse points to a future event, the return to pre-industrial society is part of a wider use of nostalgia in CrossFit that valorizes a “primal” way of life. For Hejtmanek (2020), CrossFitters are, “training to survive and ‘win’ this death-world, enabling the continuation of the current hegemonic

CROSSFIT AND SURVIVALISM

53

structures of white, patriarchal, and capitalist US supremacy” (p. 871). In other words, by “taking control” of their lives, they are communicating that they believe the social networks, those constructed by and for white patriarchal capitalists, will collapse into disorder. Although modern notions of the zombie and the zombie apocalypse are definitely rooted in fears around the racial “other” and colonization (Hejtmanek, 2020), it is unclear if that is a specific through point for CrossFit’s use of the zombie apocalypse metaphor. Arguably, while preserving hegemonic structures of inequality are inherent in any hegemonic system, CrossFit’s “other” is depicted as either the failed neoliberal obese individual or the elite. Therefore, the fear of societal collapse due to obese bodies and the corruption of elites may eclipse the traditionally racialized others portrayed in the zombie discourse. Furthermore, for some the threat of the zombie apocalypse is perceived as an opportunity to re-conceptualize and re-articulate what is important in life. The pre-industrial society envisioned as the outcome of the zombie apocalypse is rooted in a nostalgic and secular imagining of a premodern world. In this nostalgic imaginary, the elites have failed and the populous, in this case virtuous and well-prepared CrossFit participants, are well-positioned to remake the world in their image. Given CrossFit’s historical avoidance of recognizing systemic social issues such as racism (Brooks, 2020; Brooks & Mack, 2020; Edmonds et al., 2022) and sexism (McCarty, 2013; Washington & Economides, 2016), it is likely that this post-apocalyptic new world would indeed reproduce racial and gendered hierarchies, albeit not as conspicuously as Hejtmanek contends.

CrossFit and Anti-authority A final way that CrossFit articulates with the values found in the survivalist subculture is its decidedly anti-authority stance. While CrossFit’s branding of “primal fitness” articulates with discourses of population survival and anti-technology, it is perhaps CrossFit’s articulation with survivalism’s anti-authority stance that is most controversial. Tapia (2003) argues that, “…survivalists… possess a deep mistrust of government officials, an obsessive hatred of federal authority, a belief in far reaching conspiracy theories…” (p. 490). Similarly, CrossFit’s ostensibly libertarian philosophy is both anti-authority and explicitly distrustful of contemporary knowledge. Thompson and Isisag (2022) note that in the contemporary

54

S. E. EDMONDS

moment, “….reflexive doubt toward institutionally sanctioned authorities has led to a proliferation of alternative expert systems, each catering to the anxieties of different consumer segments” (p. 315). CrossFit could be seen as an alternative expert system that provides a product to combat consumer anxieties. Although CrossFit’s public spats with contemporary fitness authorities such as the American College of Sports Medicine (ACSM) and the National Strength and Conditioning Association (NSCA) could be seen as merely pushing back against their competitors (Berger, 2013, 2016; Helm, 2013; Kilgore, 2016; Webster, 2009), as an organization CrossFit has exhibited a pattern of lashing out at authority and fostering doubt in the validity of governmental, academic, and fitness institutions while offering its own alternative set of knowledge experts and practices around health. The populist conspiracy speculations and distrust of authority that underpin the survivalist movement are particularly evident in Glassman’s campaign against “big soda” and subsequent attacks on academic research. In 2015, Glassman began polemically attacking soda-producing corporations through CrossFit’s social media outlets, arguing that soda is a “toxin” killing the populace (Leonard, 2016). A particularly controversial tweet from the CrossFit Twitter account showed an image of a Coca-Cola bottle with the caption “Open Diabetes,” and the text of the tweet stating, “Make sure you pour some out for your dead homies” (Wilson, 2016). Although the CrossFit lifestyle eschews consuming simple sugars such as those found in soda, the vitriolic attack on “big soda” was especially sensational. While the initial attacks on “big soda” by an organization devoted to improving human fitness are not in itself strange, the subsequent use of soda as a tactic to undermine the work of health researchers was unusual. As part of Glassman’s attack on “big soda,” Glassman began a campaign to bring attention toward the funding of physical health research in academia by soda corporations such as Coke and Pepsi. Glassman argues that research that has been in any way supported by “big soda” should not be trusted, and that misinformation from these studies has duped the general populace (Leonard, 2016; Wilson, 2016). As part of the campaign, Glassman held public forums with elected officials and sent letters to academic researchers imploring them to reject funding from “big soda” (Campbell, 2016; Leonard, 2016; Wilson, 2016). Glassman also advanced his agenda by visiting CrossFit boxes: “We’re in a holy war with Big Soda,” Glassman told a crowd at a gym in California earlier

CROSSFIT AND SURVIVALISM

55

this year. “It’s killing this country’s health” (Wilson, 2016). In creating a moral panic around soda, Glassman galvanized the CrossFit population to turn a distrustful gaze toward academic research. Glassman’s controversial stance borders on conspiracy theory, arguing that, “A big part of the problem [with big soda] has been the corruption of the health sciences … that corruption has public health consequences” (Wilson, 2016). In stating that public health and the health sciences have become corrupt, Glassman calls into question contemporary knowledge of physical fitness and health and situates himself, and by proxy CrossFit, as a more reliable arbiter of health and fitness knowledge. While some argue that the attack on “big soda” is a thinly veiled attack on competing fitness certification organizations such as the ACSM and NSCA (McCarty, 2016), the discourses being deployed to rally the CrossFit population rely on the use of conspiracy theories that are designed to undermine the authority of the ACSM and NSCA, as well as to undermine research in exercise physiology. In this instance, there is a clear articulation of an anti-authority conspiracy theory that parallels the ideological beliefs of the survivalist movement. These anti-authority and anti-elite perspectives not only align with survivalist beliefs, but they also contribute to the populist perception of CrossFit as a virtuous and more expert group in contrast with established knowledge production such as academia and the medical field. In Beasley et al.’s (2021) research on understanding injury among CrossFit practitioners, they found that practitioners were less likely to trust expertise from non-CrossFit sources. “…These findings demonstrated that criticism about injury – even when the critics were exercise and medical experts – did not induce members to perceive injury as a problem, reflect on how to prevent injury, or change their injury-related behaviors because these criticisms did not come from members of their own group” (Beasley et al., 2021, p. 341). Therefore, there are consequential subjectivities that are produced in and through CrossFit participation that can have profound effects on how an individual interacts with, or becomes isolated from, larger networks of knowledge production.

Conclusion Although CrossFit may not be considered explicitly part of the survivalist movement, CrossFit’s use of survivalist narratives, its functional and minimalist view of fitness, and its anti-authority politics articulate with several

56

S. E. EDMONDS

fundamental tenets of the survivalist subculture. Like the survivalist movement, CrossFit provides a space for individuals to cultivate a sense of agency and control in response to anxieties about the “unknown and unknowable” future. While both movements developed in the context of growing anxieties about the future, CrossFit presents an alternative, perhaps a more mainstream alternative, to the survivalist subculture’s more pronounced and radical responses to uncertainty. That being said, CrossFit’s articulation with the survivalist subculture develops a subjectivity that extends and reinforces neoliberal individualism. In eschewing technological and governmental networks that support long-term population survival, the CrossFit-survival articulation places the onus for individual (and by proxy national) survival on the responsibilization of the individual.

References Beasley, V. L., Arthur, R., Eklund, R. C., Coffee, P., & Arthur, C. (2021). A thematic analysis of social identity and injury in CrossFit® . Sport, Exercise, and Performance Psychology, 10(2), 327–343. Beck, U. (1999). World risk society. Polity Press. Berger, R. (2013, May). NSCA “CrossFit study” fraud? The CrossFit Journal, 1–5. Berger, R. (2016). Prescribe What to whom—And why? The CrossFit Journal, 1–6. Berlant, L. G. (2011). Cruel optimism. Duke University Press. Blackman, L. (2008). The body: The key concepts. Berg. Brooks, R. (2020). CrossFit’s new CEO was asked last year about diversity. He ignored the question and walked offstage. Buzzfeed News. https://www.buz zfeednews.com/article/ryancbrooks/crossfit-ceo-questioned-diversity-gregglassman-george-floyd Brooks, R., & Mack, D. (2020, June 9). The head of CrossFit has stepped down after telling staff on a zoom call, “we’re not mourning for George Floyd”. BuzzFeed News. buzzfeednews.com Campbell, H. (2016). Fitness fallacy: An open letter to CrossFit CEO Greg Glassman. https://www.acsh.org/news/2016/03/01/an-open-letter-to-cro ssfit-ceo-greg-glassman-2 Cecil, A. M. (2011). I believe in zombies. The CrossFit Journal, 1–5. Cecil, A. M. (2016). CrossFit lifeguard: Anthony Kemp. The CrossFit Journal, 1–2. Edelman, D. (2012). Romancing the apocalypse. The CrossFit Journal.

CROSSFIT AND SURVIVALISM

57

Edmonds, S., Malcom, N. L., Gipson, C. M., & Bennett, H. (2022). “They do not represent our gym”: How CrossFit affiliates define community as they respond to racial controversy. Sociology of Sport Journal, 1(aop), 1–9. Glassman, G. (2002). The garage gym. The CrossFit Journal (2), 1–12. Glassman, G. (2007). Understanding CrossFit. The CrossFit Journal (56), 1–2. Glassman, G. (2009). Primal fitness. The CrossFit Journal. Hejtmanek, K. R. (2020). Fitness fanatics: Exercise as answer to pending zombie apocalypse in contemporary America. American Anthropologist, 122(4), 864– 875. Helm, B. (2013). Do not cross CrossFit. Inc. Magazine. https://www.inc.com/ magazine/201307/burt-helm/crossfit-empire.html Herz, J. C. (2014). Learning to breathe fire: The rise of CrossFit and the primal future of fitness. Three Rivers Press. Heywood, L. (2015). ‘Strange borrowing’: Affective neuroscience, neoliberalism and the ‘cruelly optimistic’ gendered bodies of CrossFit. In C. Nally & A. Smith (Eds.), Twenty-first century feminism: Forming and performing femininity (pp. 17–40). Springer. Kabel, A., & Chmidling, C. (2014). Disaster prepper: Health, identity, and American survivalist culture. Human Organization, 73(3), 258–266. Kilgore, L. (2016). Exercise is medicine: Imprecision and impracticality. The CrossFit Journal, 1–6. Lamy, P. (1996). Millennium rage: Survivalists, white supremacistes, and the Doomsday prophecy. Plenum Press. Leonard, K. (2016). CrossFit’s founder seeks to sour government’s Soda Stance. U.S. News & World Report. http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/201609-21/crossfit-brings-soda-battle-to-capitol-hill Martin, M. L. (2014). World War Z. The CrossFit Journal. McCarty, P. (2013). Dear CrossFit: Talayna deserves better. https://breakingm uscle.com/learn/dear-crossfit-talayna-deserves-better McCarty, P. (2016). Breaking down the CrossFit, #sugarkills, and coke debate. http://breakingmuscle.com/fitness/breaking-down-the-crossfit-sugarkillsand-coke-debate McKenzie, S. (2013). Getting physical: The rise of fitness culture in America. University Press of Kansas Lawrence. Murphy, T. (2012). Inside the box: How CrossFit® shredded the rules, stripped down the gym, and rebuilt my body. VeloPress. Nash, M. (2018). ‘Let’s work on your weaknesses’: Australian CrossFit coaching, masculinity and neoliberal framings of ‘health’ and ‘fitness.’ Sport in Society, 21(9), 1432–1453. Pernick, M. S. (1997). Eugenics and public health in American history. American Journal of Public Health, 87 (11), 1767–1772.

58

S. E. EDMONDS

Preston, J. (2010). Prosthetic white hyper-masculinities and ‘disaster education.’ Ethnicities, 10(3), 331–343. Stallings, R. A. (1990). Media discourse and the social construction of risk. Social Problems, 37 (1), 80–95. Swanson, R. A., & Spears, B. M. (1995). History of sport and physical education in the United States (4th ed.). Brown & Benchmark. Tapia, A. H. (2003). Technomillennialism: A subcultural response to the technological threat of Y2K. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 28(4), 483–512. Thompson, C. J., & Isisag, A. (2022). Beyond existential and neoliberal explanations of consumers’ embodied risk-taking: CrossFit as an articulation of reflexive modernization. Journal of Consumer Culture, 22(2), 311–330. Walsh, S. L. (2020). Eugenics and physical culture performance in the progressive era: Watch whiteness workout. Springer. Washington, M. S., & Economides, M. (2016). Strong is the new sexy: Women, CrossFit, and the postfeminist ideal. Journal of Sport & Social Issues, 40(2), 143–161. Webster, T. (2009). How we got here: CrossFit vs the fitness industry. The CrossFit Journal. Wilson, M. (2016). CrossFit brings lobbyists to its war on soda. http://thehill. com/business-a-lobbying/business-a-lobbying/308216-crossfit-brings-lobbyi sts-to-its-war-on-soda

CrossFit and Military Entanglements

Abstract CrossFit has a long and complicated history of entanglement with military and law enforcement communities. In this chapter, I consider some of the ways that the military legacies of CrossFit are inculcated and reproduced in both the format of the daily WOD and in the benchmark Hero WODs. CrossFit’s WOD structure owes itself to the legacy of the military boot camp and the proliferation of boot camp style workouts in the late 1990s. Furthermore, CrossFit’s WOD structure and flexibility in scaling made it an ideal workout for troops deployed abroad who lacked access to traditional fitness facilities. Through the dialectical relationship between CrossFit and the military, we see the development of the Hero WODs; particularly difficult workouts that act as a remembrance of a fallen military member. Through the re-enactment of the Hero WODs, everyday civilians commemorate the dead through an embodied performance, blurring the lines between civilian and military. Keywords CrossFit · Populism · Military · Boot Camp · Civilian Soldier

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2023 S. E. Edmonds, Make America Fit Again, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-6311-9_4

59

60

S. E. EDMONDS

CrossFit’s branded website launched in the spring of 2001, several months before the devastating terrorist attacks of September 11 (Glassman, 2005). The start of the Iraq War saw ground troops traveling to the Middle East with woefully insufficient training and equipment, fighting guerrilla insurgents in oppressively hot temperatures (Leung, 2004). A number of deployed soldiers, unable to find traditional training equipment, and facing the “unknown and unknowable” in the form of roadside bombs and terror attacks, turned to CrossFit as a supplement and alternative to typical military training (Herz, 2014; Vieth, 2008). Through the use of CrossFit programming, military personnel developed resilience to the unknown and unknowable in actual instances of survival on the battlefield. While the CrossFit “fit” body is seen as a site for developing methods of survival within the culture of CrossFit, the discourse of survivalism extends beyond individuals to encompass the survival of the nation; particularly evident through CrossFit’s articulation with the U.S. military and law enforcement communities. Since its inception, CrossFit has been used as a method for training what has recently been described as “tactical athletes,” “…personnel in special weapons and tactics (SWAT), special operations forces, conventional military forces, law enforcement, and fire and rescue response” (Alvar et al., 2017, p. 2). The combination of exciting functional movements and the promise to prepare for the “unknown and unknowable” make CrossFit particularly appealing to the tactical athlete. Arguably, those in the most consistently dangerous and life-threatening conditions are military forces and police. CrossFit as an organization has historically established strong ties with military personnel through its consistent outreach and valorization of military soldiers. In exploring the articulations between CrossFit and militarism, I look specifically at the historical contexts and motivations out of which CrossFit is formed, the military and nationalist legacies that inform the production of the WOD, and the valorization of military personnel through the Hero WODs. From CrossFit’s origins as a single box owned by the Glassman in the late 1990s, CrossFit has always been heavily connected with the military and law enforcement communities (Belger, 2012; Herz, 2014; Murphy, 2012). As Belger (2012) recounts, “One of the initial aims of CrossFit founder, Greg Glassman, was to utilize his program to raise the fitness levels of our country’s defenders” (p. 117). CrossFit’s aggressive and physically taxing practice was born out of Glassman’s work with the Santa Cruz Police Department and developed through his work with military,

CROSSFIT AND MILITARY ENTANGLEMENTS

61

para-military, and elite athletes (Herz, 2014). To further reinforce CrossFit’s relationship with the military, CrossFit often provides free training, certification, and sometimes equipment to military personnel who wish to train in, and affiliate with, CrossFit (Belger, 2012; Herz, 2014). Though it may appear contradictory at first, CrossFit as an organization valorizes military personnel even as it retains a distrustful antiauthority stance toward the military as an institution. While Glassman is a vocal supporter of the military troops, he is often critical of the military as an organization (Herz, 2014). In the case of the military, CrossFit presents itself as a superior alternative to combat survival when compared with traditional military training (Herz, 2014). Glassman advocated for the use of CrossFit among military personnel, much to the consternation of military officers who feared that CrossFit would increase rates of injury in already taxed soldiers (Bergeron et al., 2011; Herz, 2014). In a joint statement produced by the ACSM and military officers, it was argued that CrossFit’s methods were untested and that, “… a measurable and costly increase in injury risk could arise when ECPs are performed inappropriately, with an anticipated consequent reduction in individual and unit operational and combat readiness when one or more injuries are sustained” (Bergeron et al., 2011, p. 388). Deflecting the criticism as junk science (Glassman, 2012), Glassman and CrossFit continue to proselytize CrossFit’s virtues with the military and veteran communities through consistent outreach and military valorization (Herz, 2014).

CrossFit and the Legacy of the Boot Camp CrossFit’s signature practice, the WOD, owes much of its form and structure to legacies of physical culture that historically entangled military preparedness with primary education in the post-World War II period. Following World War II, public fears around the “fitness” of the military (Rice et al., 1969; Swanson & Spears, 1995) led to changes in physical education programs in primary schools. Through initiatives such as Eisenhower and Kennedy’s work in the President’s Council on Youth Fitness, physical education programs were revamped to become primarily group callisthenic programs designed to develop children into potentially fit future soldiers. In the context of the Cold War, “…the public correlated the fitness of the country’s children with the nation’s survival…” (McKenzie, 2013, p. 25). Children were taught that it was their civic duty as future parents (and potentially defenders of the nation) to invest in

62

S. E. EDMONDS

their own individual fitness, and thereby invest in the fitness of their capitalist nation (McKenzie, 2013). These physical activity initiatives conflated the fitness of children with contemporary notions of U.S. global superiority, particularly in contrast with communist nations. In addition to driving healthist narratives that articulated the fit body with civic duty and U.S. exceptionalism, these initiatives served to, “…transform[] the social space of the classroom into a citizen-producing machine where fitness and discipline become synonymous with health and bravery” (Montez de Oca, 2005, p. 158). The intense investment of national ideology in the physical culture of physical education was an important conjuncture in the development of modern physical activity, and its legacy is evident in contemporary healthist discourses surrounding personal fitness. It is precisely the conflation of civilian fitness with military preparedness found in postwar physical education that is emulated in the contemporary boot camp. It is out of this legacy of physical education preparedness, based on preparing children for military service, that the modern physical fitness practice of the civilian boot camp was developed. The traditional military boot camp was used to indoctrinate new soldiers into military conditioning or rehabilitate military soldiers for criminal behavior (Marshall, 2012). Although the concept of the boot camp was used in some civilian communities as a rehabilitative program, it wasn’t until the late 1990s that the modern concept of the civilian fitness boot camp was popularized (Marshall, 2012). The modern boutique boot camp is predominantly a callisthenic activity that takes place in an outdoor setting such as a local park or other green space. Marshall argues that these, “civilian boot camp workouts can be considered throw backs to 1950s military-style exercise” (Marshall, 2012). Often developed by former military, civilian boot camps apply basic military fitness training techniques to civilian populations. These, “…outdoor programs led by drill sergeant-inspired instructors…” seek to use the glamor of the traditional military boot camp as a way to differentiate from other forms of non-elite physical activity (Krucoff, 1998). In more expressly combining the group callisthenic programming from post-World War II physical education programs with the trappings of military disciplining authority, the modern civilian boot camp forms the basis of the WOD as performed in a CrossFit box. The CrossFit program was developed in and through the context of the burgeoning boot camp fitness boom, and its WOD structure and philosophy bear many similarities to the civilian boot camp fitness

CROSSFIT AND MILITARY ENTANGLEMENTS

63

model. Each is led by an instructor or coach who frames the daily physical activity as a challenge and encourages participants throughout the activity. Prior to the development and the growth of the CrossFit affiliate box system, many people would perform CrossFit-developed WODS in non-traditional outdoor spaces such as parks and abandoned industrial areas (Herz, 2014). However, while the callisthenic movements such as plyometrics and gymnastic movements found in boot camps are still prominent in CrossFit programming, the CrossFit WOD incorporates several equipment-related movements, such as Olympic Power movements, into its programming. CrossFit’s program design is in many ways an extension of the civilian boot camp that itself builds on the legacy of physical education reforms during the Cold War. While the fitness programming prescribed by CrossFit and the modern boot camp share similarities, it is their complex and undeniable semiotic relationship with the romanticized idea of war and military camaraderie through pain that differentiate them from other forms of non-elite physical culture. CrossFit is but one in a growing number of “pain communities” that center their membership and affiliation on the valorization of pain brought about through intense physical experiences (Atkinson, 2008; Weedon, 2015). As Dawson (2015) argues, “Mutual connection and identification derived from shared (sometimes grueling) experience … are recurrent themes in CrossFit, religion, and military” (p. 6). In the following quote, we see the entanglement of pain, camaraderie, boot camps, and the military powerfully articulated together in the embodied experience of a CrossFitter. There’s a militaristic strain to each WOD, a boot-camp quality that makes each rep feel as if something’s at stake besides hip fat or glute strength. The coach is always circling, yelling, commanding you to never drop that bar. Burpees are compared to the movements you might make in combat before you engage the enemy and sprint 30 yards to save your wounded friend… It’s this militarization, this puke-inducing exertion, that keeps me coming back- and that occasionally startles me with its politics. (Percy, 2013, p. 7)

The high intensity of the CrossFit WOD mimics the pressures of wartime combat, and participants are able to envision themselves as fulfilling the nationalist imperative to be prepared for war. The way in which the WOD is framed and executed, with a coach pushing their “team” to succeed

64

S. E. EDMONDS

in each workout, mirrors the camaraderie through pain perceived and enacted through military training. “As one participant reflected, the pain, blood, and sweat help to forge comradeship, something he only previously experienced in the military” (James & Gill, 2018, p. 716). Participants in CrossFit studies frequently and positively compare CrossFit participation to military experiences (e.g., Beasley et al., 2021). Participation in the WOD also creates an embodied experience that simulates an apocalyptic scenario and provides a military solution to overcoming that scenario. Imbricated within the CrossFit WOD are historical legacies of physical education and the boot camp that serve to strengthen articulations of militarism and nationalism within the CrossFit practice.

The Hero WODs Perhaps the most visible articulation of the CrossFit practice with forms of militaristic patriotism is the Hero WOD. The Hero WOD is a specific workout of the day designed to memorialize a military soldier (or soldiers) who died in battle. The development of the Hero WODs appears early in CrossFit’s history and is entangled with CrossFit’s adoption by military soldiers stationed abroad during the Iraq War (Vieth, 2008). With minimal equipment and space for training, some soldiers would adopt CrossFit WODs using improvised equipment and local surroundings. When a companion CrossFitter fell in battle, their death would (sometimes) be commemorated through a CrossFit workout (Herz, 2014). Although there are over 300 Hero WODs posted on the CrossFit website, the most famous is the Murph. The first Hero WOD, the Murph, was an attempt by a military CrossFit group to remember CrossFitter Michael Murphy who died heroically in combat. CrossFit heard the story of Murphy and posted it as their workout of the day, along with the following text: In memory of Navy Lieutenant Michael Murphy, 29, of Patchogue, N.Y., who was killed in Afghanistan June 28th, 2005. This workout was one of Mike’s favorites and he’d named it “Body Armor.” From here on it will be referred to as “Murph” in honor of the focused warrior and great American who wanted nothing more in life than to serve this great country and the beautiful people who make it what it is. (www.CrossFit.com)

CROSSFIT AND MILITARY ENTANGLEMENTS

65

In describing the motivation for memorializing Murphy, emphasis is placed on not only Murphy’s qualities as a “focused warrior” and a “great American,” but also on the “beautiful people” he sought to protect through his service. This serves to interpellate the average CrossFitter performing the Murph as one of the constituents Murph sought to protect—creating a bond between the CrossFit participant and the story of Michael Murphy. The Murph has appeared several times in the CrossFit Games and is the favored WOD in many boxes for Veteran’s Day. As Hejtmanek (2020) contends, “Murph and its association with Memorial Day illustrate the close link between the US war on terror and [CrossFit] as an exercise regime” (p. 868). Indeed, the Murph serves as an annual psychic remembrance of the existential and physical risk felt in the post9/11 moment, as well as the historical connection between CrossFit and the Iraq war. However, it is not just in the naming of the WOD that the military hero is memorialized, but it is also in the ritual of performing the WOD itself. As some of the most challenging CrossFit workouts, the Hero WODs are designed to push the boundaries of individual performance in the pursuit of valorizing military soldiers. It is in the embodied “doing” of the WOD that the soldier’s sacrifice is commemorated and ideologically inculcated through the participant’s labor. Hero WODs are ten times harder than regular CrossFit workouts. They’re fallen soldiers’ favorite workouts, a sacrifice of human energy to the glorious fallen dead. What some battle-trained solider did, to get tougher, to test himself, is re-enacted push-up by push-up, power clean by power clean, sprint by sprint. What a fallen warrior did, at the peak of his physical powers, regular people do, or struggle to do, in his memory. Hero WODs are meant to take an athlete outside himself. They’re supposed to put you in the Hurt Locker. They put you on the ground. You feel like you’re about to die. Then you get up, and remember some incredibly strong, brave young guy who didn’t. (Herz, 2014, p. 111)

Through the ritual of the Hero WOD, CrossFit participants memorialize the military dead through a symbolic recreation of battle. In “getting up” from the Hero WOD, CrossFitters metaphorically evoke a powerful form of remembrance wherein they are the Hero for the duration of the workout. This articulates the actions, and the body itself, of the CrossFit participant with a mythical deceased soldier. In performing the

66

S. E. EDMONDS

Hero WOD, the CrossFit participant temporarily crosses from civilian to soldier, and in effect develops the identity of a citizen-soldier. The ritual doesn’t stop at simply memorializing the dead and developing the citizen-soldier; it also serves to reinforce the connection between being a “good citizen” and the ideology of military nationalism. The CrossFitter is duty-bound to perform their best because, it is argued, the military Hero can no longer perform their duties. As Berger (2010) recounts, “When keeping the stories behind the real-life heroes in mind, slowing down during a Hero workout becomes harder to justify. When the pain of pushing harder becomes too great, I am reminded of the sacrifice these men made for my freedom, and my struggle becomes laughable. And when I compare my temporary suffering to the lifelong sorrow felt by the grieving families of these men, dropping the bar becomes an embarrassment to my country [emphasis mine]” (p. 5). The Hero WOD turns the citizen CrossFitter into a soldier who, in that moment at least, becomes responsible for carrying on a militaristic and nationalistic agenda through their embodied practice. Through the practice of the Hero WOD, they are called into service to the country, albeit in the relative safety and security of a CrossFit box. That being said, the CrossFit soldier also uses the Hero WOD as a way to connect with the civilian population. Some argue that military personnel who practiced CrossFit during their deployment would frequently continue their CrossFit practice as civilians: often founding their own box or providing coaching (Belger, 2012; Herz, 2014). The Hero WOD then becomes a means for reconnecting with military memories and sharing that experience with (predominantly) non-military civilians (Percy, 2013). Therefore, these Hero WODs are not only a powerful form of military valorization through the embodied recreation of battle and the experiential nationalism of the ritual, but it also serve as a bridging and community building venue for former and current military in the civilian sphere. CrossFit’s articulation with the military through overt interaction and ritual practice clearly capitalizes on post-9/11 consumptive discourses that blur the line between military and civilian life (Martin & Steuter, 2010). Thompson and Isisag (2022) contend that “…[the] strategic use of crisis memories [such as 9/11] fosters a belief that preparation for unexpected challenges, through response-enabling training practices, is an essential feature of contemporary life” (p. 316). Consequentially, participation in the Hero WOD is no less than the uncritical and absolute

CROSSFIT AND MILITARY ENTANGLEMENTS

67

valuation of military service as the idealized way of performing citizenship. As Giroux (2006) argues, “…militarization deforms our language, debases democratic values, celebrates fascist modes of control, defines citizens as soldiers, and diminishes our ability as a nation to uphold international law and support a democratic global public sphere” (p. 135). The training of civilians as “tactical athletes” destroys the already slim barrier between civilian and military identities, and the further inculcation of military memorialization as a method for personal growth redefines the citizen as soldier.

Conclusion While in certain ways CrossFit’s articulation with the military-industrial complex is strikingly obvious, there is a nuanced complexity that can be easy to overlook. Although CrossFit taps into, and capitalizes on, the current cultural power of military-centered nationalism, its rebuke of the military as an institution articulates a military without bodies and soldiers without leaders. Even as CrossFit reinforces the normalization of military ideology within and through the CrossFit brand, it paradoxically creates a space of egalitarian community and de-emphasizes military authority (Belger, 2012; Heywood, 2016). In this way, CrossFit offers a form of alternative nationalism that reinforces neoliberal individualism and valorizes the military, even as it de-articulates from national institutional power.

References Alvar, B. A., Sell, K., & Deuster, P. A. (2017). NSCA’s essentials of tactical strength and conditioning. Human Kinetics. Atkinson, M. (2008). Triathlon, suffering and exciting significance. Leisure Studies, 27 (2), 165–180. Beasley, V. L., Arthur, R., Eklund, R. C., Coffee, P., & Arthur, C. (2021). A thematic analysis of social identity and injury in CrossFit® . Sport, Exercise, and Performance Psychology, 10(2), 327–343. Berger, R. (2010). Fallen but Never Forgotten. The CrossFit Journal. Retrieved from http://library.crossfit.com/free/pdf/CFJ_Berger_Fallen.pdf Belger, A. W. (2012). The power of community: CrossFit and the force of human connection. Victory Belt Pub. Incorporated. Bergeron, M. F., Nindl, B. C., Deuster, P. A., Baumgartner, N., Kane, S. F., Kraemer, W. J., Sexauer, L. R, Thompson, W. R., & O’Connor, F. G. (2011).

68

S. E. EDMONDS

Consortium for Health and Military Performance and American College of Sports Medicine consensus paper on extreme conditioning programs in military personnel. Current sports medicine reports, 10(6), 383–389. Dawson, M. C. (2015). CrossFit fitness cult or Reinventive institution? International review for the sociology of sport, 1012690215591793. Giroux, H. A. (2006). The emerging authoritarianism in the United States: Political culture under the Bush/Cheney administration. symplok¯e, 14(1/2), 98–151. Glassman, G. (2005). www.crossfit.com. The CrossFit Journal (40), 1–5. Glassman, J. A. (2012). An answer. The CrossFit Journal. Retrieved from http:// library.crossfit.com/free/pdf/CFJ_Champ_ALL_007.pdf Hejtmanek, K. R. (2020). Fitness fanatics: Exercise as answer to pending zombie apocalypse in contemporary America. American Anthropologist, 122(4), 864– 875. Herz, J. C. (2014). Learning to breathe fire: The rise of CrossFit and the primal future of fitness. Three Rivers Press. Heywood, L. (2016). ‘We’re In This Together:’neoliberalism and the disruption of the coach/athlete hierarchy in CrossFit. Sports Coaching Review, 5(1), 116– 129. James, E. P., & Gill, R. (2018). Neoliberalism and the communicative labor of cross fit. Communication & Sport, 6(6), 703–727. Krucoff, C. (1998, March 31). Back to basic; “boot camp” workouts spur trend toward classic calisthenics. The Washington Post. Leung, R. (2004). GIs lack armor, radios, bullets. https://www.cbsnews.com/ news/gis-lack-armor-radios-bullets-31-10-2004/ Marshall, A. (2012). History of boot camps. https://bootcampmilitaryfitnessinst itute.com/what-are-boot-camps/history-of-boot-camps/ Martin, G., & Steuter, E. (2010). Pop culture goes to war: Enlisting and resisting militarism in the war on terror. Lexington Books. McKenzie, S. (2013). Getting physical: The rise of fitness culture in America. University Press of Kansas Lawrence. Murphy, T. (2012). Inside the box: How crossfit® shredded the rules, stripped down the gym, and rebuilt my body. VeloPress. n.a. (n.d.). www.crossfit.com. www.crossfit.com Montez de Oca, J. (2005). As our muscles get softer, our missile race becomes harder: Cultural citizenship and the muscle gap. Journal of Historical Sociology, 18(3), 145–172. Percy, J. (2013, June 14). Sweat in peace. New Republic. https://newrepublic. com/article/113284/crossfit-memorializes-dead-war-heroes-workouts Rice, E. A., Hutchinson, J. L., & Lee, M. (1969). A brief history of physical education (5th ed.). Ronald Press.

CROSSFIT AND MILITARY ENTANGLEMENTS

69

Swanson, R. A., & Spears, B. M. (1995). History of sport and physical education in the United States (4th ed. ed.). Madison, Wis. Brown & Benchmark. Thompson, C. J., & Isisag, A. (2022). Beyond existential and neoliberal explanations of consumers’ embodied risk-taking: CrossFit as an articulation of reflexive modernization. Journal of Consumer Culture, 22(2), 311–330. Vieth, P. (2008). Jury awards $300,000 in gym lawsuit. Virginia Lawyers Weekly. http://valawyersweekly.com/2008/10/09/jury-awards-300000-ingym-lawsuit/ Weedon, G. (2015). Camaraderie reincorporated: Tough Mudder and the extended distribution of the social. Journal of Sport and Social Issues, 39(6), 431–454.

CrossFit and Populism

Abstract While previous chapters focused on the ideology expressed in and through the CrossFit practice, this chapter explores the ways in which CrossFit as an organization presents a populist narrative in and through its legal battles and its opposition to governmental regulation. Unlike other fitness organizations, CrossFit has used considerable legal power to combat and silence critics of the CrossFit practice, particularly when it comes to discussions of the potential for injury in CrossFit. Furthermore, when governmental bodies seek to regulate personal trainers to avoid malpractice, CrossFit uses a populist underdog narrative to rally adherents to protest this legislation. In and through these interactions, CrossFit compels adherents to envision themselves as a virtuous (and homogenous) populace beset by legal and governmental threats to their way of life. Although CrossFit is a branded private organization, it uses populist narratives to mobilize private citizens toward political action on behalf of the CrossFit brand. Keywords CrossFit · Populism · Regulation · Fitness Industry

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2023 S. E. Edmonds, Make America Fit Again, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-6311-9_5

71

72

S. E. EDMONDS

CrossFit’s articulations with healthism, survivalism, and militarism speak to a larger shift in the relationship between the individual and the state in the context of growing sociocultural anxieties and the ongoing processes of neoliberal individualization. Inglehart and Norris (2016) argue that the rise of populist leaders in the form of Donald Trump and the Tea Party on the Right, and Bernie Sanders on the Left, can be traced back to economic, social, and cultural inequalities stemming from the neoliberal policies of the 1980s and beyond. The continued retrenchment of the governmental public safety net through deregulation and defunding, combined with economic globalization, has driven increases in economic inequality and placed more individuals into economic precarity. Inglehart and Norris (2016) contend that, “…mass support for populism, which is understood to reflect divisions between the winners and losers from global markets, and thus whether lives are economically secure or insecure” (p. 12) has increased as economic inequality has continued to grow. In other words, growing political and economic insecurity can be seen as intrinsically linked to populism’s rise in the United States (Robotham, 2020). As individuals are faced with greater insecurity and precarity, many have invested in various individualized solutions articulated with healthism, survivalism, and militarism as a way to mitigate and prepare for inevitable future risks. Through the cultural process of neoliberal individualization and the accompanying governmental retrenchment in public services, individuals are placed in a double bind, particularly on issues of personal health and well-being. In the current healthist paradigm, the individual is tasked with making “responsible” choices that can implicate them in a constellation of signifiers that differentiate them into either good or bad citizens. But how is responsibility defined and what makes a choice responsible? As Ayo (2012) argues, “… when exercising one’s autonomy and freedom, it is expected that the responsible citizen will allow his or her lifestyle to be guided under the auspices of knowledgeable experts and normative prescriptions of what it means to be healthy. This requires attending to one’s own health in ways which have been socially approved and politically sanctioned” (p. 104). However, finding appropriate knowledge experts and discerning normative prescriptions is an incredibly difficult task for the average citizen, particularly due to the underregulated and often predatory fitness industry. Since its rise to prominence in the late 1970s, the contemporary health and fitness industry has consistently struggled with misinformation and opportunists

CROSSFIT AND POPULISM

73

(Black, 2013; Malek et al., 2002; McKenzie, 2013). In efforts to keep the fitness market unregulated by the government, several organizations such as the National Strength and Conditioning Association (NSCA) and the American Council on Exercise (ACE), among many others, advocated for a science-based approach to fitness, a certification structure, and a risk-averse model of fitness in attempts to self-regulate the fitness market (Malek et al., 2002). Unfortunately, the increased privatization and commercialization of health knowledge, combined with the popularity of so-called social media experts, has advanced a maelstrom of misinformation. The fitness market continues to accommodate selfproclaimed experts and pseudoscientists; each touting the ostensibly most effective new product, gimmick, or technique for private purchase (Tiller et al., 2022). For the average person, discerning reliable and evidencebased information from half-truths and falsehoods is a time-consuming and near-impossible task. Although there has always been an alternative market for pseudoscience within the health and fitness industry, in many cases the state and the medical industrial complex have used their biopolitical power (McKenzie, 2013; Rose, 2001) to establish and disseminate the signifiers required for validation as a good citizen through the proliferation of supported subject experts. These subject experts are often aligned with government institutions such as the Center for Disease Control, nonprofit organizations such as the American Heart Organization, and academic institutions. However, in recent years, the public faith in established medical organizations has been increasingly diminished due to politically driven anti-science skepticism, particularly from the conservative right in the United States (e.g. Hotez, 2020). Furthermore, while academic institutions were once at the forefront of physical activity research, the retrenchment of grantbased government funding has pushed academic departments to consider public–private partnerships in order to fund research projects. These public–private partnerships have opened the door to skeptical speculation on potential ethical conflicts of interest, regardless of if such partnerships are ethically dishonest (Andrews et al., 2013; Leonard, 2016; McCarty, 2016). Taken together, as conflicting and competing ideas of the healthy body enter the largely deregulated marketplace (Terris, 1999), individuals tasked with becoming their own “knowledgeable experts” are faced with impossible decisions. Within an ever-widening and ever-conflicted marketplace of ideas on what constitutes health and the healthy body, particularly including the method and process of achieving that healthy

74

S. E. EDMONDS

body, individuals must stitch together their own subjectivities of health based upon market-driven (as opposed to science-driven) products and services. It is within this confusing and chaotic morass of fitness industry knowledge production that CrossFit provides an “elegant” solution. In considering the double bind of contemporary neoliberal healthist discourse, CrossFit offers a simplified and tightly packaged collection of practices and subjectivities that clearly define health and knowledge, while also providing social and embodied markers of good citizenship. Within the CrossFit practice, individuals feel empowered to become their own health expert, albeit heavily influenced by CrossFit’s marketing and ideological philosophies (Belger, 2012; Herz, 2014). As former CrossFit social media director Russell Berger once stated, “Strong conviction to the tenets of individualism and responsibility make CrossFit look less like a fitness program and more like a course in Libertarianism” (Belluz, 2018). A key component of the CrossFit package requires buying in to the ideology that CrossFit does, in fact, provide a better solution to the anxieties of the current moment when compared to any other institution; including (but not limited to) medical, governmental, traditional fitness, and academic institutions. For example, in discussing the approach to injury within CrossFit, Powers and Greenwell (2016) argue, “To cope [with injury], branded fitness often pushes a deeper commitment to the routine, including dietary changes (Avurvedic for Bikram, Paleo for CrossFit), clothing or gear that in some way manages discomfort, and advice sought from teachers or coaches instead of medical professionals” (p. 535). This creates a dichotomous and antagonistic relationship between the knowledge of CrossFit “experts” and the more traditional collection of experts including academics, public health officials, and the medical community. In developing citizen-experts that seek to escape the double bind created by neoliberal individualization and retrenchment, CrossFit advances a populist project wherein the people believe that they (CrossFit practitioners) have “better” knowledge than the “elites” (academics, scientists, etc.). CrossFit’s antagonistic relationship with the broader fitness and health communities is inherently rooted in a populist perspective that presents CrossFit participants as virtuous survivors of a corrupt health and fitness industry. Albertazzi and McDonnell (2007) define populism as “an ideology which pits a virtuous and homogeneous people against a set of elite and dangerous ‘others’ who are together depicted as depriving

CROSSFIT AND POPULISM

75

(or attempting to deprive) the sovereign people of their rights, values, prosperity, identity and voice” (p. 3). CrossFit adherents are similarly established as virtuous individuals who are “reclaiming” the “primal fitness” (Glassman, 2009; Herz, 2014) stolen from them through corporate capitalization of fitness spaces (Glassman, 2002a, 2002b, 2007; Wiest et al., 2015) and supposed corrupt elites within the fitness community (Berger, 2016a, 2016b; Bowles, 2015; Glassman, 2016; Helm, 2013; Kilgore, 2006, 2016). Within the first few years of developing the CrossFit brand, Glassman and the CrossFit organization began criticizing fitness industry institutions such as the NSCA and ACSM for being ineffective (Kilgore, 2006; Webster, 2009) and inherently corrupt (Leonard, 2016; Wilson, 2016), placing CrossFit in an adversarial relationship with the broader exercise physiology and sport science community (Webster, 2009). CrossFit has even developed its own yearly alternative CrossFit Health Conference aimed at bringing together health professionals and somewhat fringe scientists to tackle the problems of obesity and healthcare (Belluz, 2018). This populist polarization between dominant exercise science organizations and the rebellious CrossFit paradigm creates a volatile situation in which “expert” research is routinely dismissed in favor of populist practices, fringe data, and polemics against mainstream health and fitness organizations. Although recent research has indicated that CrossFit is a relatively safe practice (Babiash et al., 2013; Chachula et al., 2016; Fernández et al., 2015; Hak et al., 2013; Sprey et al., 2016; Weisenthal et al., 2014), CrossFit has long been associated with injury (e.g. Greeley, 2014; Gregory, 2014). Indeed, it could be argued that CrossFit’s public flirtation with injury is part of the CrossFit brand (Edmonds, 2021). For example, in one of the earliest interviews about CrossFit, Glassman himself made public statements that used injury as a way to differentiate a “true” CrossFit participant from outside exercisers. “It can kill you…I’ve always been completely honest about that,” he said. “If you find the notion of falling off the rings and breaking your neck so foreign to you, then we don’t want you in our ranks.” (Cooperman, 2005). The most serious of the allegations concerning CrossFit’s physical risks is the development of exertional rhabdomyolysis; a potentially fatal condition in which the body’s metabolic pathways begin to shut down following acute physical overexertion (Allen, 2005; Glassman, 2005; Rathi, 2014; Ray & Su, 2008; Robertson, 2013; Shugart, 2008). It is within the context of Glassman’s sardonic rhetoric and a number of high-profile injury cases

76

S. E. EDMONDS

(Hopkins et al., 2019; Joondeph & Joondeph, 2013; Pearcey et al., 2013; Rathi, 2014; Tibana et al., 2018), that CrossFit began to face scrutiny from the fitness industry and increased legal action. What follows is an examination of two pieces of CrossFit-produced media that communicate CrossFit’s populist position within the context of injury litigation and proposed legislation. While each piece of media is a response to a different event, both pieces of media depict an embattled and oppressed CrossFit being persecuted by outside forces. Each “battle” is rhetorically constructed as a stand for individual rights and freedom, as well as a valorization of the non-elite expert. Finally, keep in mind that although CrossFit is a corporate organization that provides almost no support to individual boxes or CrossFit coaches, each media piece highlights the role of the CrossFit populace in defending the CrossFit brand.

CrossFit’s Legal Battles One way that CrossFit’s populist narratives are reinforced in and through the CrossFit formation is through CrossFit’s engagement with litigation around injury. In 2016, The CrossFit Journal published an article detailing the circumstances and outcome of a court case in which the defendant argued that a local CrossFit Box had caused him to develop exertional rhabdomyolysis (Ray & Su, 2008) due to the negligence of Coach John McPherson (Berger, 2016a). In the context of the article, the defendant and the defendant’s lawyers are portrayed as opportunistic vultures who are all too eager to strip Coach McPherson of his (rightfully earned) CrossFit box. McPherson, a former Army Special Forces solider, was medically discharged after a parachute accident broke bones in both feet and one ankle. As a civilian, McPherson began his career as a CrossFit affiliate owner in 2007, pursuing education and improving the excellence of his services with the same focus that led to his becoming an elite soldier… What [the defendant]’s lawyers wanted from McPherson was an illiterate ex-military grunt with little regard for his trainees’ health and safety. What they got instead was one of the most qualified, organized and prepared trainers in the world. (Berger, 2016a, p. 2)

CROSSFIT AND POPULISM

77

The article uses hyperbolic language and exaggeration to discursively construct McPherson as the ultimate individual—entrepreneurial, selfeducated, patriotic in service, and incredibly capable in all areas of life. The narrative similarly constructs the legal system (represented by the lawyers) as a devious outsider whose sole goal is to strip McPherson of his individually earned accomplishments. The lawyers, and by proxy the legal system, are associated with elitist attitudes toward military personnel, even as the narrative positions McPherson as, “…one of the most qualified, organized and prepared trainers in the world” (Berger, 2016a, p. 2). As a citizen-soldier, McPherson engages in battle with the fiendish lawyers and eventually emerges victorious and exonerated. The implication is that he emerges victorious due to his association with the Special Forces and his further growth through engagement with CrossFit. In this populist scenario, the self-made and self-educated McPherson is able to challenge and defeat the “elite” oppressor. More subtly, the narrative itself contains several stem arguments and ideas that are left uncompleted or underexplored, allowing the reader to bridge the lack of official narrative by developing their own narrative to connect the disparate pieces. The CrossFit Journal is specifically written for those who practice CrossFit and therefore is always already inundated with CrossFit’s ideological messaging. Consequently, these stems are part of an intertextual experience enmeshed within and through the CrossFit brand. These stem ideas, when completed by readers, are connected to the concepts of healthism, survivalism, and militarism discussed in previous chapters. The most obvious narrative stem is the discussion of McPherson’s military background and its connection to his CrossFit practice. The author connects McPherson’s association with the Army Special Forces Soldier and his ability to “combat” the legal system. Implied in the allusions to McPherson’s military background is that his military training provided him a baseline set of skills that were transferable to new situations; the Special Forces training helped McPherson to grow his own business and to take on the legal system. In contrast to the perception of McPherson as an “illiterate ex-military grunt with little regard for his trainees’ health and safety,” McPherson’s military training instilled the perseverance and individual willpower that would not only facilitate McPherson becoming a successful business entrepreneur, but also provide the tools to successfully fend off threats from the legal system. In other words, military service

78

S. E. EDMONDS

prepared McPherson to become a citizen-expert capable of achieving their goals through independent and individualized effort. The individual independence developed through military service also dovetails with the simplified form of survivalism that is part of the CrossFit brand. The author invokes the specter of the “unknown and unknowable” in the form of a lawsuit and contends that it is McPherson’s various forms of self-guided preparation that allowed him to overcome this new, unexpected hurdle. The author equates the tools needed to become an elite soldier with the tools needed to become an entrepreneur and to the tools needed to overcome legal challenges—constant improvement and “focus.” In making this statement, the author flattens expertise and expert knowledge, communicating that multiple domains of knowledge can be effectively mastered with simple self-education and “focus.” Furthermore, the implication is that expert knowledge is accessible and easily obtained—a key component in developing the citizen-expert of populism. Finally, the short vignette also communicates the individual imperative of healthism. The discussion of McPherson’s military background alludes to his personal journey with injury: McPherson was “…medically discharged after a parachute accident broke bones in both feet and one ankle.” While we don’t know the context of the parachute accident, whether it was in combat or during training, we do know that McPherson suffered sufficient damage to his feet to receive a medical discharge. This ostensibly extraneous piece of information serves two functions in the narrative. First, there is the narrative arc of McPherson’s recovery from an injury that was sufficiently detrimental that it warranted a military discharge to the active coach of a high-intensity physical activity program. As there is no discussion of how this recovery occurred, it can be read that the recovery was facilitated in and through the CrossFit practice. In excluding medical professionals in the recovery narrative, the author positions McPherson as virtuously taking care of their own health through individual participation in the CrossFit practice. Second, the ambiguity of how and where the injury occurred allows the reader to assume that the injury occurred in the line of duty. If McPherson was injured in the line of duty, then his injury elevates his level of virtuosity by implying that he put his body in harm’s way in order to protect the country. Taken together, the opening paragraph of this particular article communicates a populist ideology in which the individual is able to overcome any obstacle and wield expert level knowledge through personal

CROSSFIT AND POPULISM

79

perseverance and willpower. Moreover, it is not simply overcoming the obstacles of a legal battle, but being so masterfully proficient that McPherson is described as, “…one of the most qualified, organized and prepared trainers in the world.” Through these and like narratives, the CrossFit citizen-soldier protects and defends their territory, and the CrossFit brand, from outside invaders.

CrossFit and Governmental Legislation While the heroic narratives of individual legal battles serve to reinforce the othering of elites and valorize individual citizen-experts, it is perhaps CrossFit’s legislative battles that have most served to indoctrinate CrossFit participants into CrossFit’s populist ideology. CrossFit’s populist politics are evident in their vocal resistance to any legislation that would seek to regulate personal trainers, including trainers certified through CrossFit. Until recently, both the larger fitness industry and CrossFit have been against any form of governmental regulation that would require physical activity trainers to be certified by the state. Politicians seem concerned, understandably, that the unregulated fitness industry will cause incidents of physical injury to the general populace (Lloyd, 2005; Malek et al., 2002). Therefore, every few years there is a piece of state legislation introduced that seeks to regulate or otherwise constrain the scope of practice and certification process for fitness trainers. Although both the larger fitness industry and CrossFit have railed against mandated state certification, the particular perspective that they take is quite different. The larger fitness industry contends that it’s educational programs and certification structure are self-regulating mechanisms that can protect against potential injury (Malek et al., 2002). In the context of ongoing fears of legislation, the high profile and overly sensationalized reports of CrossFit’s potential for injury was the source of much of the initial antagonism toward the CrossFit brand (Berger, 2013; Greeley, 2014; Gregory, 2014; Mullins, 2015; Petersen et al., 2014). Conversely, CrossFit’s more populist position is that any legislation would be an infringement on the individual rights of CrossFit Coaches. Furthermore, CrossFit followers believe that state-based certification would be incredibly ineffective as a CrossFit Coach is far more knowledgeable than any state organization could be. Taken together, CrossFit’s position is a populist position that sees CrossFit Coaches as virtuous independent experts that would only be oppressed by legislative efforts.

80

S. E. EDMONDS

However, the wider fitness industry has started to acquiesce somewhat to the idea of legislation. The fitness industry at large has become more cognizant toward the potential benefits that governmental regulation could confer—particularly in regard to gaining access to medical insurance funding (Davis, 2015a, 2015b). Programs such as the ACSM’s Exercise Is Medicine initiative “encourages physicians and other health care providers to include physical activity when designing treatment plans and to refer patients to evidence-based exercise programs and qualified exercise professionals” (“American College of Sports Medicine,” July 19, 2022). Of course, the ACSM would be the arbiter of who is considered a “qualified exercise professional” for this particular program. These and other initiatives are attempts by the fitness industry to both elevate the status of fitness industry professionals and to subsidize the cost of fitness professionals by re-articulating their services as a billable component of medical care (Carter, 2001). In contrast, CrossFit perceives these initiatives as another source of corruption within the fitness industry. While Glassman argues that the Exercise Is Medicine initiative is merely an attempt by the ACSM to regain the market share it has lost to CrossFit (WAMU, 2015), other arguments from The CrossFit Journal are more concerned with the effect of legislation tying medical practice to certain forms of exercise knowledge (Kilgore, 2015a, 2015b, 2016). The overarching fear is that a non-CrossFit model of exercise science would be codified into law, forcing CrossFit to follow non-CrossFit guidelines for physical activity (Kilgore, 2015b). Kilgore (2015b) argues that, “Licensure would threaten the livelihoods of a huge percentage of current practitioners, and the economic effects would be far reaching. These practitioners need only unite in voice and put forth cohesive arguments that overwhelm those of the minority who would prefer licensure” (p. 6). Kilgore advances a populist narrative within which the minority, in this case the ACSM and NSCA, are threatening the existence and identity of the CrossFit majority. Regardless of whether the wider fitness industry is the majority or the minority in this case, what is important is the positioning of CrossFit’s fitness ideology as the “will of the people.” CrossFit’s populist narrative against legislation is evident in their local campaigns against personal trainer regulation. For instance, in 2015 there was proposed legislation in Washington, D.C., to create a statebased certification process for fitness industry trainers. The legislation was proposed with the intent of reducing instances of injury and sexual

CROSSFIT AND POPULISM

81

misconduct in the fitness industry (Davis, 2015a, 2015b). In their vocal response to threats of legislation in Washington, D.C., CrossFit distributed fliers at local boxes that use explicitly populist language in order to protest the legislation: The DC Government is moving to impose new licensing requirements on DC fitness trainers that will dictate what a workout should look like, and will make fitness more expensive and less accessible. This arbitrary, under-baked legislation is a terrible solution in search of a made up problem, driven by self-interested organizations who want to shut CrossFit down and profit from new government licensing fees. The DC government has declared war on our definition of fitness—and is threatening who we are. We don’t take orders from our competitors. Our trainers don’t adhere to others’ mediocre standards. And none of us should have to pay for a view of fitness we don’t share. We know what we do and we do it well. Let’s keep it that way. (dc.webuiltthisbox.com)

Similar to the CrossFit Journal article, this flier uses hyperbole and exaggeration to position the CrossFit community as a virtuous group besieged by oppressive and intrusive outsiders who seek to destroy CrossFit. The flier was part of a multi-pronged campaign in 2015 by the CrossFit organization to push back on attempts to legislate fitness professionals in DC. This campaign included interviews with Glassman where he elaborates on the enemies of CrossFit and the dangers of regulation, as well as the development of a website dedicated to helping individuals contact their government officials. In order to rally opposition to the proposed legislation, CrossFit developed these fliers and distributed them to boxes in the DC area. When reading the flier, there are similar ambiguous stems in the narrative that can only be understood within the broader CrossFit intertextual experience. The flier describes “self-interested organizations,” “competitors,” and “the DC Government” as enemies of the CrossFit organization, but the specifics are left to CrossFit members to interpret. Therefore, just like the McPherson article, this requires an intertextual understanding of various CrossFit media in order to fully understand who the enemies of CrossFit are and why they are considered enemies. Narratively, the flier performs a number of functions in order to mobilize individuals to intercede in proposed legislation that would potentially impact CrossFit’s corporate model. First, the flier constructs the CrossFit

82

S. E. EDMONDS

populace as (again) victims to an unjust, ambiguous, and predatory force. Second, the flier reiterates the position that the CrossFit citizen-expert, and concomitantly the CrossFit method, is superior in knowledge when compared to these outside forces. Finally, the flier conflates CrossFit the corporation with the individuals who practice CrossFit, creating a homogenous community opposed to regulation and uniform in their uncritical support of CrossFit’s methods and politics. As with the McPherson article, CrossFit positions itself as the victim of ambiguous external forces that seek to control, limit, and ultimately harm the CrossFit way of life. Although arguably the proposed legislation would affect all fitness trainers, CrossFit insinuates that they are the sole victim of the legislation when they state that “self-interested organizations” are hoping to “shut CrossFit down” and that the DC government is “declar[ing] war” on CrossFit. CrossFit’s misleading narrative describes a scenario in which CrossFit stands singular and defiant against the legislation, even though in reality the legislation would have far-reaching legal ramifications for both trainer liability and insurance coding that would affect numerous professionals in a wide range of fields. Furthermore, the language in the flier conveys the misleading narrative that the proposed legislation would cause CrossFit to cease to exist, or that trainers would not be permitted to create and administer CrossFit-style workouts. Although the proposed state-based certification may have required a 2 or 4-year degree in exercise science and successful completion of a summative certification test (Davis, 2015a) in order to become a fitness industry professional, it would not necessarily eliminate or limit what occurs in the CrossFit box (Davis, 2015b). While additional certification requirements would be a real and tangible burden for CrossFit coaches when compared with the weekend course required to obtain CrossFit certification, CrossFit’s exaggerated claims serve to simplify the multiple and complex arguments that led to the proposed legislation as well as further reinforce the victim narrative that is necessary for CrossFit’s populist underdog rhetoric. In addition to creating a misleading narrative that situates CrossFit as the sole victim of the proposed legislation, the text of the flier also positions the CrossFit fitness method and education as the superior form of knowledge. The flier states that the legislation “has declared war on our definition of fitness.” In stating this, the flier communicates that it is not simply that CrossFit is a branded form of fitness activity, but

CROSSFIT AND POPULISM

83

that the root understanding of exercise and physical activity is fundamentally different than the rest of the fitness industry. One of CrossFit’s key branding points is that it has developed an “alternative” definition of fitness as part of its branded program (Glassman, 2002b). For simplicity’s sake, the definition of fitness that CrossFit puts forward is akin to what we might think of as athleticism in a strength and conditioning program: development of the three energy systems, multiple measures of performance, and the (ambiguously described) ability to perform novel tasks (Glassman, 2002b, 2004). In other words, CrossFit’s big ideological move is to consider athleticism as a goal for non-athlete populations. Therefore, when CrossFit contends that there is a “war on our definition of fitness,” they are making their definition of fitness sacred even though in many ways it is quite mundane. The sanctity of CrossFit’s definition of fitness is a rhetorical flourish that serves to position CrossFit’s knowledge as superior to the rest of the fitness industry, and therefore above reproach. CrossFit’s superior knowledge is referenced several times in the flier; they “don’t take orders from our competitors,” “adhere to others’ mediocre standards,” and, don’t want to learn about a “view of fitness we don’t share.” In declaring that the legislation is a “war” on CrossFit’s knowledge, the CrossFit approach is articulated as a right of the people that is being forcibly taken from them. As CrossFit’s definition of fitness is both superior and nonnegotiable, the flier further reinforces the populist narrative that CrossFit practitioners are both virtuous and righteous, and that it is their way of life that is under siege by external forces. Finally, this flier must be read within the context of what CrossFit actually is—a branded commercial fitness program. The business model of CrossFit is to sell CrossFit branded educational opportunities and to charge coaches a fee to use the brand name as part of the coach’s business. Except in cases of litigation, CrossFit as an organization does not provide any quality control nor guidance for box operation (Helm, 2013; McCarty, 2013). Yet in the flier, CrossFit is seen as a community that must band together to combat ambiguous external forces. It is not the CrossFit brand that is at stake, but the CrossFit way of life. This serves to homogenize the CrossFit experience, even though the experience in each box can be vastly different. In creating a normalized and homogenous CrossFit identity, this populist narrative brings together CrossFit participants and flattens their experience in order to weaponize them against the “self-interested organizations” and “the DC government.” This absolves

84

S. E. EDMONDS

CrossFit of its existence as a commercial entity and presents it instead as an egalitarian movement—for the people, by the people. In buying in to the CrossFit brand, CrossFit adherents are therefore obligated to take a political stance based on populist rhetoric. The flier further makes the argument that new legislation would “make fitness more expensive and less accessible.” While this statement is arguably true, it should be taken within the context of the fitness industry. CrossFit is one of the more expensive, and therefore inaccessible, forms of training in the fitness industry—with both one of the most expensive certification courses for new CrossFit coaches and some of the highest average membership fees (Heywood, 2016; Washington & Economides, 2016). With the exception of articles posted in the CrossFit Journal, all of CrossFit’s education and certification is monetized. While CrossFit may not be accessible and inexpensive for everyone, for those already financially invested in the CrossFit lifestyle this rhetoric conveys the threat that CrossFit will become even more costly or that it might be taken away. Whether the proposed DC legislation was indeed “arbitrary” or “under-baked,” by positioning CrossFit as the sole victim of an unfair system, CrossFit again perpetuates the populist idea that the virtuous people (CrossFit) are being oppressed by the government and they must rise up to fight this legislation. When considering the actual stakes of the legislation, as opposed to the divisive and exaggerated rhetoric of the flier, CrossFit is compelling citizens to protest the government in favor of preserving the market share of a corporate brand. Through the use of a populist narrative that positions CrossFit participants as knowledge experts under attack by both a misguided government and vindictive fitness competitors, CrossFit reductively simplifies a complex and contentious debate around injury and sexual assault concerns, the role of the fitness industry in the insurance market, and fitness training philosophy.

Conclusion CrossFit’s use of polemic language and caricature in The CrossFit Journal and in anti-legislation campaigns reinforce a populist project that portrays the CrossFit community as a “virtuous and homogenous people” (Albertazzi & McDonnell, 2007, p. 3) who are constantly under attack for their

CROSSFIT AND POPULISM

85

beliefs. The enemies of CrossFit are painted in broad strokes as ignorant, predatory, and pervasive even as CrossFit participants are described as virtuous, righteous, and superior. Narratives such as the two explored in this chapter serve to unite the CrossFit population and mobilize them to action, providing a new form of biopolitical manipulation adjacent to national biopolitical movements. To be part of the CrossFit community is also to be part of the politics associated with corporate CrossFit, and participants are manipulated through these narratives to see outside fitness organizations, regulations, and the legal system as being threats to their lifestyle. Therefore, as CrossFit participants proselytize the CrossFit practice, they also proselytize a populist narrative that drastically simplifies complex legal and legislative concerns while simultaneously filling the coffers of corporate CrossFit.

References Albertazzi, D., & McDonnell, D. (2007). Twenty-first century populism: The spectre of Western European democracy. Springer. Allen, E. (2005). Killer workouts. The CrossFit Journal (33), 1–3. American College of Sports Medicine. (2022, July 19). https://www.exercisei smedicine.org/ Andrews, D. L., Silk, M., Francombe, J., & Bush, A. (2013). McKinesiology. Review of Education, Pedagogy, and Cultural Studies, 35(5), 335–356. Ayo, N. (2012). Understanding health promotion in a neoliberal climate and the making of health conscious citizens. Critical Public Health, 22(1), 99–105. Babiash, P., Porcari, J. P., Steffen, J., Doberstein, S., & Foster, C. (2013). CrossFit: New research puts popular workout to the test. ACE ProSource, November 2013, 2–5. https://www.acefitness.org/prosourcearticle/3542/cro ssfit-sup-tm-sup-new-research-puts-popular Belger, A. W. (2012). The power of community: CrossFit and the Force of human connection. Victory Belt Pub. Incorporated. Belluz, J. (2018). CrossFit is amassing an army of doctors trying to disrupt health care.https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2018/12/13/ 18095546/crossfit-greg-glassman-doctors-health-care-prevention Berger, R. (2013). NSCA “CrossFit study” fraud? The CrossFit Journal, May, 1–5. Berger, R. (2016a). CrossFit Inc. Victorious in Texas. The CrossFit Journal, 1–5. Berger, R. (2016b). Prescribe what to whom—and why? The CrossFit Journal, 1–6.

86

S. E. EDMONDS

Black, J. (2013). Making the American body: The remarkable saga of the men and women whose feats, feuds, and passions shaped fitness history. U of Nebraska Press. Bowles, N. (2015). Exclusive: On the warpath with crossfit’s greg Glassman. Maxim. http://www.maxim.com/maxim-man/crossfit-greg-glassman-exclus ive-2015-9 Carter, L. (2001). The personal trainer: A perspective. Strength & Conditioning Journal, 23(1), 14. Chachula, L. A., Cameron, K. L., & Svoboda, S. J. (2016). Association of Prior injury with the report of new injuries sustained during CrossFit training. Athletic Training and Sports Health Care, 8(1), 28–34. Cooperman, S. (2005, December 12). Getting fit, even if It Kills you. The New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/22/fashion/thursdays tyles/getting-fit-even-if-it-kills-you.html Davis, A. C. (2015a, September 24). D.C. weakens on nation’s first registry of personal trainers. The Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/ local/dc-politics/dc-weakens-on-nations-first-registry-of-personal-trainers/ 2015/09/24/f789a864-62fa-11e5-b38e-06883aacba64_story.html Davis, A. C. (2015b, August 23). In the nation’s capital, a new business to regulate: D.C.’s personal trainers. The Washington Post. https://www.washin gtonpost.com/local/dc-politics/in-the-nations-capital-a-new-business-to-reg ulate-dcs-personal-trainers/2015/08/23/f86bb0b8-3a1b-11e5-8e98-115a3c f7d7ae_story.html Edmonds, S. (2021). Is Injury “On Brand”? Examining the contexts of the CrossFit injury connection. In The Palgrave handbook of sport, politics and harm (pp. 405–428). Springer. Fernández, J. F., Solana, R. S., Moya, D., Marin, J. M. S., & Ramón, M. M. (2015). Acute physiological responses during crossfit® workouts. European Journal of Human Movement, 35, 114–124. Glassman, G. (2002a). The garage gym. The CrossFit Journal (2), 1–12. Glassman, G. (2002b). What is Fitness. Crossfit Journal, 1(3), 1–11. Glassman, G. (2004). Why fitness? The CrossFit Journal. Retrieved from http:// library.crossfit.com/free/pdf/23_04_why_fitness.pdf Glassman, G. (2005). CrossFit induced rhabdo. The CrossFit Journal (38), 1–3. Glassman, G. (2007). Understanding CrossFit. The CrossFit Journal (56), 1–2. Glassman, G. (2009). Primal fitness. The CrossFit Journal. Retrieved from https://journal.crossfit.com/2009/08/primal-fitness.tpl Glassman, G. (2016). Crooked science. Presentation. Retrieved from https://jou rnal.crossfit.com/article/greg-dc-crooked-science Greeley, B. (2014). Is CrossFit dangerous. Bloomberg. https://www.bloomberg. com/news/articles/2014-09-04/crossfit-fights-injury-reputation-as-commun ity-aspect-fuels-growth

CROSSFIT AND POPULISM

87

Gregory, S. (2014). Lift squat repeat. Crossfit gyms’ cultish painiacs love their max-out-and-do-it-again training regimen. Their critics are getting a workout too. Time, 183(2), 40–44. Hak, P. T., Hodzovic, E., & Hickey, B. (2013). The nature and prevalence of injury during CrossFit training. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 1. Helm, B. (2013). Do not cross CrossFit. Inc. Magazine. https://www.inc.com/ magazine/201307/burt-helm/crossfit-empire.html Herz, J. C. (2014). Learning to breathe fire: The rise of CrossFit and the primal future of fitness. Three Rivers Press. Heywood, L. (2016). ‘We’re In This Together:’neoliberalism and the disruption of the coach/athlete hierarchy in CrossFit. Sports Coaching Review, 5(1), 116– 129. Hopkins, B. S., Li, D., Svet, M., Kesavabhotla, K., & Dahdaleh, N. S. (2019). CrossFit and rhabdomyolysis: A case series of 11 patients presenting at a single academic institution. Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport, 22(7), 758– 762. Hotez, P. J. (2020). Anti-science extremism in America: escalating and globalizing. In Microbes and infection (Vol. 22, pp. 505–507). Elsevier. Inglehart, R., & Norris, P. (2016). Trump, Brexit, and the rise of Populism: Economic have-nots and cultural backlash. Joondeph, S. A., & Joondeph, B. C. (2013). Retinal detachment due to CrossFit training injury. Case reports in ophthalmological medicine, 2013. Kilgore, L. (2006). The paradox of the aerobic fitness prescription. CrossFit Journal (52), 1–6. Kilgore, L. (2015a). Certification and licensure: Benefit or liability? The CrossFit Journal, 1–8. Kilgore, L. (2015b). Locking it down. The CrossFit Journal, 1–6. Kilgore, L. (2016). Exercise is medicine: Imprecision and impracticality. The CrossFit Journal, 1–6. Leonard, K. (2016). CrossFit’s founder seeks to sour government’s soda stance. U.S. News & World Report. http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/201609-21/crossfit-brings-soda-battle-to-capitol-hill Lloyd, C. (2005). Training standards as a policy option? The regulation of the fitness industry. Industrial Relations Journal, 36(5), 367–385. Malek, M. H., Nalbone, D. P., Berger, D. E., & Coburn, J. W. (2002). Importance of health science education for personal fitness trainers. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, 16(1), 19–24. McCarty, P. (2013). The peasants are revolting: It’s time for CrossFit affiliates to take back their name. https://breakingmuscle.com/learn/the-peasants-arerevolting-its-time-for-crossfit-affiliates-to-take-back-their-name

88

S. E. EDMONDS

McCarty, P. (2016). Breaking down the CrossFit, #SugarKills, and coke debate. http://breakingmuscle.com/fitness/breaking-down-the-crossfit-sugarkillsand-coke-debate McKenzie, S. (2013). Getting physical: The rise of fitness culture in America. University Press of Kansas Lawrence. Mullins, N. (2015). CrossFit: Remember what you have learned; apply what you know. Journal of Exercise Physiology Online, 18(6), 32–45. Pearcey, G. E., Bradbury-Squires, D. J., Power, K. E., Behm, D. G., & Button, D. C. (2013). Exertional rhabdomyolysis in an acutely detrained athlete/ exercise physiology professor. Clinical Journal of Sport Medicine, 23(6), 496– 498. Petersen, D., Pinske, K., & Greener, T. (2014). College coaches corner— CrossFit. Strength & Conditioning Journal, 36(2), 56–58. Powers, D., & Greenwell, D. (2016). Branded fitness: Exercise and promotional culture. Journal of Consumer Culture, 17 (3), 523–541. Rathi, M. (2014). Two cases of CrossFit® -induced rhabdomyolysis: A rising concern. International Journal of Medical Students, 2(3), 132–134. Ray, T., & Su, J. K. (2008). Exertional Rhabdomyolysis. Athletic Therapy Today, 13(5), 20–22. Robertson, E. (2013). CrossFit’s dirty little secret. https://medium.com/@ericro bertson/crossfits-dirty-little-secret-97bcce70356d#.bfv1e4ip6 Robotham, D. (2020). Populism and its others: After neoliberalism. In J. Maskovsky, Bjork-James, S. (Ed.), Beyond populism: Angry politics and the twilight of neoliberalism (pp. 23–41). West Virginia University Press. Rose, N. (2001). The politics of life itself. Theory, Culture & Society, 18(6), 1–30. Shugart, C. (2008). The Truth About CrossFit. http://www.tmuscle.com/por tal_includes/articles/2008/08-194-feature.html Sprey, J. W., Ferreira, T., de Lima, M. V., Duarte, A., Jr., Jorge, P. B., & Santili, C. (2016). An Epidemiological profile of CrossFit athletes in Brazil. Orthopaedic Journal of Sports Medicine, 4(8), 2325967116663706. Terris, M. (1999). The neoliberal triad of anti-health reforms: government budget cutting, deregulation, and privatization. Journal of Public Health Policy, 20. 149–167. Tibana, R., Sousa, N., Cunha, G., Prestes, J., Navalta, J., & Voltarelli, F. (2018). Exertional Rhabdomyolysis after an extreme conditioning competition: A case report. Sports, 6(2), 40. Tiller, N. B., Sullivan, J. P., & Ekkekakis, P. (2022). Baseless Claims and pseudoscience in health and WELLNESS: A call to action for the sports, exercise, and nutrition-science community. Sports Medicine (auckland, n. z.). https:// doi.org/10.1007/s40279-022-01702-2

CROSSFIT AND POPULISM

89

WAMU (Producer). (2015). Training and certification for personal trainers. The Kojo Nnamdi Show. [Radio Broadcast] . http://thekojonnamdishow.org/ shows/2015-07-29/should-fitness-trainers-be-licensed Washington, M. S., & Economides, M. (2016). Strong is the new sexy: Women, CrossFit, and the postfeminist ideal. Journal of Sport & Social Issues, 40(2), 143–161. Webster, T. (2009). How we got here: CrossFit vs the fitness industry. The CrossFit Journal. Retrieved from http://library.crossfit.com/premium/pdf/ CFJ_Webster_CFvsFitness.pdf?e=1699737593&h=0f437c3a5b8bcb6f29226 870a393a693 Weisenthal, B. M., Beck, C. A., Maloney, M. D., DeHaven, K. E., & Giordano, B. D. (2014). Injury rate and patterns among CrossFit athletes. Orthopaedic Journal of Sports Medicine, 2(4). Wiest, A. L., Andrews, D. L., & Giardina, M. D. (2015). Training the body for health ism: Reifying vitality in and through the clinical gaze of the neoliberal fitness club. Review of Education, Pedagogy, and Cultural Studies, 37 (1), 21– 40. Wilson, M. (2016). CrossFit brings lobbyists to its war on soda. http://thehill. com/business-a-lobbying/business-a-lobbying/308216-crossfit-brings-lobbyi sts-to-its-war-on-soda

CrossFit’s “Unknown and Unknowable” Future

Abstract The final chapter of this book specifically looks at the authoritarian populism of the charismatic co-founder and former CEO of CrossFit, Greg Glassman. First, I explore the ways in which Glassman used his power and platform as CEO of CrossFit to exert authoritarian control over the organization and to create a chilling environment where criticism of Glassman or CrossFit could have severe consequences. I then contextualize Glassman’s populist leadership by considering the reemergence of populist leaders starting in the early 2000s. Next, I detail the circumstances around which Glassman separated from CrossFit and how those circumstances were directly connected to both Glassman’s authoritarian populism and the hyper-individualization valorized in the CrossFit practice. To close, I consider not only the changes to CrossFit following Glassman’s departure, but also the ways in which CrossFit as a practice may still fulfill its initial promise to be an inclusive and egalitarian organization. Keywords CrossFit · Populism · Authoritarian · Meritocracy

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2023 S. E. Edmonds, Make America Fit Again, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-6311-9_6

91

92

S. E. EDMONDS

As both a product and producer of the contemporary moment, an explication of the CrossFit phenomenon provides insight into the underlying ideology that is imbricated in daily practices of physical activity. In radically contextualizing the CrossFit phenomenon, the ideologies that co-constitute the contemporary context are made legible. CrossFit’s articulation with modern healthist discourses, the burgeoning survivalist movement, the increased valorization of the military, and the rising ideology of populism create a space where individuals feel connected and empowered as individuals (Belger, 2012; Herz, 2014; Madden, 2014). While CrossFit may articulate with other ideological and discursive formations, these particular articulations help individuals make sense of, and in some ways prepare for, the growing sense of anxiety in the contemporary milieu. As uncertainty about the future continues through increased globalization and pervasive economic, social, cultural, and political moral panics, CrossFit provides a sense of empowerment to a disenchanted and ever-distrustful populace. This empowerment and self-direction felt by CrossFitters is rightfully intoxicating and contributes to CrossFit’s cult-like adherence (Dawson, 2015; Herz, 2014). CrossFit perpetuates a promise of transformation and survival in an increasingly precarious society, and in many ways it delivers. As a key part of the CrossFit reinventive institution, the fit body becomes a site of signification for a constellation of values that are interconnected in and through a number of discourses. CrossFit differentiates from contemporary healthist discourse by centering the instrumental body as a signifying marker of morally correct health-seeking behavior. However, CrossFit’s focus on fitness requires increased self-management in order to achieve the corporeal signification of good citizenship. In placing the fit body at the center of its practice, CrossFit articulates with both survivalist discourse that seeks to prepare for apocalyptic geopolitical catastrophe and the legacy of military nationalism developed in and through physical education initiatives. The instrumentally fit body of the CrossFit practitioner is a perceived embodiment of superior fitness knowledge, and that body is weaponized against CrossFit’s detractors. The “CrossFit body” then is a site in and through which power and power relations are wielded in the CrossFit phenomenon. Even though CrossFit resists some dominant discourses around health and the body, particularly in its move from aesthetic valuation to instrumental valuation, in many ways it reproduces inequitable power structures through the reinscription of neoliberal and populist ideologies. As

CROSSFIT’S “UNKNOWN AND UNKNOWABLE” FUTURE

93

CrossFit functions as a space for individual transformation, the neoliberal ideologies of self-preservation and responsibilitization, alongside the populist ideology of self-determination and reduced governmental interference, are reinscribed in and through the CrossFit practice. As part of the required investment in the CrossFit lifestyle, participants are subtly indoctrinated into neoliberal and populist ideologies that, in many ways, accentuate the sense of anxiety and precarity of the contemporary context. Further, in developing CrossFit as a space for preparing for the “unknown and unknowable,” CrossFit creates a healthist hierarchy between the “fit” and the “unfit”; effectively instilling neoliberal ideologies of those who are worthy of national citizenship and those who are unworthy. The worthy are positioned as the CrossFit practitioners, who are recast as more knowledgeable about health and fitness than medical and fitness professionals. The CrossFit practitioner is articulated as a hero in the perceived war on fitness knowledge, and trained for combat through the creation of citizen-soldiers during the WOD. When Glassman states that CrossFit is in a “holy war” with big soda, the CrossFit adherent becomes a warrior in Glassman’s army. In using populist ideology in their narratives, CrossFit and CrossFitters are positioned paradoxically as both rebels against the elite ruling populace of the nation, and as revolutionaries for the building of a stronger nation. Finally, in creating hierarchies of fitness and positioning CrossFit as a besieged space of enlightenment, CrossFit isolates its adherents from broader social and cultural networks. While these ideologies help to secure a strong CrossFit-based community and offer CrossFit-centered solutions to individual and national problems, they also stifle the potential for mutually beneficial collaboration among fitness professionals and encourage privatized solutions to social problems. Such antagonism toward society and institutions of knowledge may be individually empowering, but it does little to combat inequitable structures of power.

CrossFit and Authoritarian Control CrossFit’s authoritarian populist ideology has been created in and through CrossFit’s leadership. As discussed in the first chapter, it is difficult to separate the ideology of CrossFit from CrossFit’s founder, Greg Glassman. For early adherents of CrossFit, Glassman was a revered figure: a humanitarian, a rebel, and ultimately a coach. While the affiliate system undoubtedly allows for individual boxes to form their own glocalized

94

S. E. EDMONDS

fitness culture, Glassman’s public persona and leadership informed the core sociocultural foundation of CrossFit. Like many authoritarian populist leaders, Glassman used crass and provocative language as part of his public personality (Robotham, 2020). As such, instances of sexism, racism, and ignorance within CrossFit HQ have often been ignored or excused as simply a personality trait. Glassman’s status as an iconic and outspoken leader rendered him almost untouchable, shielded by legions of followers who have been convinced the CrossFit exercise program and the development of the CrossFit community are acceptable exchanges for Glassman’s positions and rhetoric. Furthermore, as Glassman built CrossFit, he assembled a core group of leadership that pulled from military, law enforcement, and strength and conditioning backgrounds. Coming from traditionally politically conservative spaces (e.g. Cooper et al., 2017; Dashper & Fletcher, 2013; Thomas & Tufts, 2020; Thomas et al., 2021, 2022), these burgeoning leaders were accustomed to both Glassman’s authoritarian leadership and his focus on meritocracy. To reiterate, CrossFit positions itself as a neoliberal meritocratic institution in which racial and gendered hierarchies cease to exist in the space of the box. This allows for social, cultural, and economic inequalities to be overlooked and (in some cases) derided. The repudiation of structural inequality is further exacerbated under a populist system, wherein acknowledging these differences would fracture the homogeneity of the virtuous populace. In creating a boundary project that clearly delineates a virtuous populous from a corrupt other, any dissent would place someone on the outside of CrossFit. Therefore, even as CrossFit boxes may develop egalitarian communities, CrossFit leadership frequently refuses to engage with issues of gender or race in the CrossFit community (e.g. Brooks, 2020; Demby, 2013; McCarty, 2013a). Although Glassman contended that CrossFit was a democratized, “open source” approach to fitness (Herz, 2014), in practice that was not the case. Glassman’s ostensibly “libertarian” ethos, that each box should be unregulated and that the market should sort things out, applied only to those he agreed with. Throughout Glassman’s tenure as CEO of CrossFit, he held an authoritarian control of the organization and demanded nearabsolute fealty under threat of public retaliation or excommunication from CrossFit (Rosman, 2020; Wolf, 2009). CrossFit forum posts that Glassman did not agree with were deleted and in some cases affiliate status was rescinded (McCarty, 2013b). This created a situation in which

CROSSFIT’S “UNKNOWN AND UNKNOWABLE” FUTURE

95

members of CrossFit were hesitant to be publicly critical of Glassman out of fear. Outside of CrossFit, Glassman used legal tactics to silence critics (Helm, 2013). For example, in an infamous legal battle with the National Strength and Conditioning Association over an academic paper published in The Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, Glassman argued that one of the paper’s conclusions had been fabricated to make CrossFit look bad. Although the article itself was generally supportive of CrossFit as an exercise modality, Glassman took issue with the contention that several study participants had to drop out due to injury. In the legal proceedings, Glassman did turn out to be in the right, and the article was withdrawn from publication (Berger, 2013; Han, 2017). This confrontation would begin Glassman’s crusade against academic and health institutions. Taken together, Glassman’s social and legal attacks had a chilling effect on criticism directed toward the organization of CrossFit and the individual of Glassman. Instead of directly criticizing Glassman, the organization slowly moved away from valorizing Glassman. Changes in the certification process removed him from personally assigning the coveted coach certification (Carroll, 2014), and new writers came in to write articles for The CrossFit Journal. For many who began their CrossFit practice after the CrossFit Games, those who had not become adherents during the early days of the CrossFit forums, Glassman was not central to their experience as a CrossFit practitioner. Through these changes, Glassman was de-centered from CrossFit’s public face even as he retained the power to lash out at his critics. An end result of Glassman’s authoritarian populist leadership was the development of a leadership echo chamber, wherein Glassman’s actions, behavior, and public statements went largely uncontested. As Glassman visited boxes, competitions, and public events, his untouchable status meant that his indiscretions and inappropriate behavior were overlooked, ignored, and downplayed. In a veritable empire built on antagonism, polemics, and a conservative aversion to anything that might be seen as “politically correct,” Glassman and his leadership team were able to act with impunity. Although there is limited published information directly discussing Glassman’s objectification and mistreatment of women, there is evidence that this has been a consistent and recurrent activity throughout CrossFit’s history. In announcing the Girls workouts in The CrossFit Journal,

96

S. E. EDMONDS

Glassman joked that “anything that left you flat on your back, looking up at the sky, asking ‘What the fuck happened to me’ deserved a female’s name” (Herz, 2014, p. 69). Additionally, in interviews about CrossFit, Glassman objectifies women CrossFitters and makes sexual comments about their bodies. For example, in a 2015 article in Maxim, there are several references to Glassman ogling women and having sexual art in his office depicting women in lingerie (Bowles, 2015). Within the CrossFit community, rumors of additional comments and inappropriate behavior are discussed off the record in hushed tones. It would not be until Glassman’s ousting that people came forward to discuss the pervasive sexist harassment of women within CrossFit (Rosman, 2020). The objectification of women appeared to be endemic within the CrossFit leadership. Academics and CrossFit adherents have criticized CrossFit’s social media for using sexualized images of women. Washington and Economides (2016) argue that while CrossFit, “…capitalizes on and contributes to this moment where female physical strength and strong bodies are valorized and widely touted, it also reinscribes those bodies as sexual objects for both the heterosexual male gaze and the narcissistic gaze” (p. 156). On CrossFit’s social media platforms, there were numerous images of women displayed in sexually suggestive or compromising positions, and in at least one particularly egregious instance ribald comments were encouraged through a “caption contest” (McCarty, 2013a). CrossFit’s conservative and colorblind leadership has also created moments of willful ignorance that have negatively impacted AfricanAmerican CrossFitters. For example, at the 2016 Reebok CrossFit Games, a Glock semi-automatic pistol was awarded as part of the prize package. While Glock was a sponsor of the Games, the choice to include it in the prize package was a poor decision at best. From a practical standpoint, the Games are an international competition. Although winners in the men category were predominantly from the United States, winners in the women category came from countries with strict anti-gun legislation—meaning they would not have been able to bring the pistol to their home country (Perez, 2016). Furthermore, specifically awarding the Glock pistol was incredibly culturally insensitive given the thenrecent mass-shooting at a historically Black church in Charleston, South Carolina. Instead, as with many decisions by CrossFit leadership, the conservative valorization of law enforcement was prioritized over other CrossFit constituents.

CROSSFIT’S “UNKNOWN AND UNKNOWABLE” FUTURE

97

While Walsh (2020a) argues that CrossFit provides a refuge from the growing White Nationalism found in commercial gym spaces, CrossFit’s authoritarian populism, corporate embrace of conspiracy theories, and close ties to the military and police make it ripe for infiltration. Indeed, far-right QAnon conspiracy theorist and U.S. House of Representatives member Marjorie Taylor Greene once owned a CrossFit box and has invoked CrossFit as part of her public sparring with democratic leaders (Williams, 2020). In another instance, New York box owner Robby Dinero was interviewed by Fox News for refusing to close his box during the COVID-19 lockdown—an interview that was reposted on social media by then CrossFit general manager Dave Castro. “Just three days after the Fox interview aired, though, CrossFit announced that it had canceled the affiliation for the Buffalo gym—but not for breaking the law. An email came to light in which Dinero wrote to a customer who had requested a refund for an event that was canceled due to the pandemic: ‘I will refund your money as soon as you eat my ass you filthy, foreign, third-world piece of shit. Fuck you very much.’” (Mestel, 2020). In contrast to Walsh’s position, CrossFit’s legacy of ambivalence, ignorance, and inappropriate actions from leadership has perhaps instead been a beacon for White Nationalists and other individuals who exhibit xenophobic, racist, and sexist behavior and who believe that there will be no (or few) repercussions for their actions.

CrossFit’s Conjunctural Synergies If some of these actions and indiscretions sound familiar, it is not surprising. Starting in the early 2000s, there emerged numerous social and political figures whose charismatic and populist presence dominated everyday discussions. Public leaders such as former U.S. President Donald Trump and former UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson rose to prominence through the development of a public persona that used rhetoric that was unabashedly crass, vindictively combative, and drenched in hypermasculine posturing (Robotham, 2020). These leaders are known for defying social conventions and running roughshod over established protocols and laws. Given the hyper-individualizing and isolating effects of neoliberalism, combined with the complexity of globalization, these leaders are appealing in their ability to (seemingly) disrupt power and power relations for populations that feel aggrieved.

98

S. E. EDMONDS

Like Glassman, many of these populist leaders have embraced the hyper-individualizing ideology of neoliberalism, often simplifying the complexities of power and power relations in a global community to a set of individual moral choices. In the case of CrossFit, that hyperindividualization is expressed through healthism, but in other domains, it exhibits in different ways such as blaming poor and underprivileged groups for being poor and underprivileged. In denying the existence of systemic inequalities, populist leaders promote the hyper-individualizing nature of neoliberalism, and they use that hyper-individualism as a tool for control. If one is not productive in specific ways, with a visible constellation of signifiers indicating “success,” then their investment in the populist movement is questioned and they are considered an outsider to the group. The threat of excommunication for not conforming becomes a powerful method of directing behavior and resources toward the goals of the populist leader. Furthermore, this group of populist leaders has a paradoxical and complicated relationship with the military and other forms of law enforcement. While these leaders repeatedly valorize law enforcement and the “rule of law,” they paradoxically often break rules and subvert laws in the pursuit of their personal ambitions. For Glassman, this could be seen in his opposition to certification and regulation for CrossFit, even as he decries the “insufficient” regulation of the NSCA, ACSM, and academic researchers, among others. For public leaders like former President Trump, this could be seen through his adamant and vocal attacks on Hillary Clinton’s unsecured emails and Hunter Biden’s business dealings with China, even as he himself mishandles top secret documents, has used his presidential connections to develop private retail properties abroad, and faces dozens of lawsuits. In essence, rules and laws are important when used against their enemies, but they are depicted as politically motivated, malleable inconveniences, or just plain ignored when applied to themselves. Finally, these modern populist leaders use the language of potential risk alongside the rhetoric of nostalgia in order to develop a mythical utopia rooted in a past that never existed. The dramatic changes to daily life wrought through globalization, the upward distribution of wealth, and the weakening of government safety nets have emboldened dystopian narratives that situate individual preparation as the only means of longterm survival. Modern populist leaders depict their “population” as the harbingers of a new tomorrow—one beyond the risks and complications

CROSSFIT’S “UNKNOWN AND UNKNOWABLE” FUTURE

99

of the current moment. In a time when everything seems unstable and unclear, populist leaders provide a direction and purpose based on a simpler, and often inaccurate, past. In the case of CrossFit, this nostalgic past is a time when the United States was physically fit and powerful, while in Trump’s nostalgic past the United States was economically successful and socially stable. However, a cursory glance through history complicates the veracity of these narratives. The United States has gone through several periods where the populace is not physically fit, and indeed many of our current ideas around the fit body are relatively recent (e.g. Black, 2013; Dworkin & Wachs, 2009; McKenzie, 2013; Pronger, 2002). Similarly, while the United States has been (and continues to be) a global economic leader, the history of the United States is one of conflict, upheaval, and social unrest (e.g. Loewen, 2008). The foundation upon which populist leaders build their utopian future is often both simplified and inaccurate, and these narratives serve to distract from the complex problems wrought through neoliberal policies and globalization. In giving their followers a righteous purpose, permission to violate legal and cultural norms, and a pathway to overcome modern risks, populist leaders provide an intoxicatingly simple solution to the complexities of the lived world. Concurrently, as followers become more enmeshed in populist networks, they become both isolated from other networks and entangled with the politics of populist leadership. Taken together, populist leaders develop a fervent following that is willing to protect, excuse, and advocate for their leader at great personal cost. In the case of Glassman, this involved ignoring and downplaying his increasingly incendiary and problematic public persona (Edmonds et al., 2022). In the case of former President Trump, this involved (among other things) the January 6 insurrection and the continued lie that the election was stolen. This works as a feedback loop, further emboldening authoritarian populist leaders to increase and expand their vitriolic attacks with impunity.

“It’s Floyd-19” In the summer of 2020, amidst nationwide protests against police violence following the murder of George Floyd by Minneapolis police officers, Glassman finally crossed a line that he had been pushing against throughout his time as CEO of CrossFit. Unlike many corporate brands nationwide that put forward a position statement in response to the protests, CrossFit leadership was conspicuously silent. The first statement

100

S. E. EDMONDS

made by CrossFit leadership would be a tweet from Glassman in response to the Institute of Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME) Twitter post that decried systemic racism as a public health issue in the United States. Glassman’s insensitive and ignorant response, “It’s Floyd-19,” would set off a series of revelations, retractions, and responses that would reverberate through the CrossFit community. A leaked video conference call from earlier that week showed Glassman spouting conspiracy theories about Floyd’s death, denying systemic racism, and aggressively belittling box owners who asked CrossFit leadership to make a statement supporting the entire CrossFit community (Brooks & Mack, 2020; Pitts Jr, 2020; Royse, 2020). In light of Glassman’s tweet, the leaked video, and his series of non-apologies, CrossFit affiliates, and social media personalities began to call for Glassman’s resignation, and CrossFit began to lose sponsors (Edmonds et al., 2022). Within weeks, CrossFit had been bought out and Glassman removed. Glassman’s response has been widely criticized for its insensitivity to the current conjuncture, as well as being emblematic of his positionality as a White, heterosexual, conservative man (e.g. Edmonds et al., 2022; Rosman, 2020; Royse, 2020). These criticisms are definitely valid points of focus, but within the context of CrossFit’s populist ideology, his commentary is wholly unsurprising. As discussed throughout this work, CrossFit’s articulations with healthism, survivalism, and militarism have rendered CrossFit a populist project that is anti-authority and individualizing even as it valorizes law enforcement. The initial response to IHME could be interpreted as merely another extension of CrossFit’s anti-authority and meritocratic stance. While insensitive and racist, Glassman’s tweet was intended as yet another flippant attack on two things: the public health response to COVID-19 and the belief that there is systemic racism in the United States. Within CrossFit’s populist project, the perception is that the public health response to COVID-19 was both exaggerated and an example of government overreach. Several prominent CrossFitters argued that practicing CrossFit was more protective against COVID infection than masks or stay at home orders (Mestel, 2020). Instead, they believed that individual boxes should be allowed to make choices about their own personal health—independent of government intervention or public health authorities. Similarly, the individualization of responsibility stands in stark contrast to concepts of systemic racism. As part of the conspiracy theory that Glassman argued in the recorded interview, Glassman argued that Floyd must have had

CROSSFIT’S “UNKNOWN AND UNKNOWABLE” FUTURE

101

a personal problem with the individual officer—it could not have been racism (Royse, 2020). Taken together, Glassman’s response is perfectly in alignment with the populist values espoused in and through CrossFit. Perhaps the most important of these is CrossFit’s conservative valorization of law enforcement and the military, and the complications this position creates when contrasted with CrossFit’s ideology that CrossFit is for everyone. This specific conjuncture is particularly revealing as it lays bare the tension between law enforcement and Black communities. As a conservative profession, law enforcement has had a troubled history with White Nationalism and racial injustice in general (e.g. Finnegan, 2021; Thomas & Tufts, 2020). In continuing to show unquestioned support of law enforcement, CrossFit leadership positioned itself in opposition to social justice movements such as the Black Lives Matter movement. As Dale Saran, Glassman’s lawyer for eight years at CrossFit, writes in response to the “Floyd-19” controversy, “Is Glassman supposed to wade into the fray and choose between his “woke” Affiliates and his police Affiliates–the latter being the ones who helped build CrossFit, the guys and gals that were there from the beginning?” (Saran, 2020). As a populist project, affiliates that do not unequivocally support the law enforcement community are labeled as “woke” and marked as unworthy of support from CrossFit leadership. Within systems of power and power relations, those who benefit from hegemonic structures and systems are often blind to their own positional privilege (Tatum, 2003). As a White heterosexual male, Glassman could not conceive that his comments were racist or that they should face criticism. In discussing the tweet, Glassman argued that he had “made a mistake by the words I chose,” and that “it was a mistake, not racist but a mistake” (Pitts Jr, 2020). Glassman’s series of non-apologies are evidence of a White male privileged existence, where discussions of systemic inequality are reduced to a meritocratic and individualized understanding of power and power relations.

CrossFit and the Promise of a Better Future Following the forced departure of Glassman in 2020, affiliate owner and entrepreneur Eric Roza purchased CrossFit and became its new CEO. Roza promised sweeping changes to CrossFit’s business model, including a stronger focus on diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI), as well as more support for affiliates (Clark, 2021). However, in 2022 Don Faul, a former

102

S. E. EDMONDS

U.S. Marine Platoon Commander with executive experience in the tech and fitness apparel industries, was hired as the new CEO of CrossFit. According to an interview with Faul, the new mission of CrossFit is to change people’s perception that CrossFit training is dangerous. While the interview does mention providing more support for the affiliate program, nowhere in the interview is there a discussion of the DEI plans put forward by Roza (Newby, 2022). Therefore, it is unclear whether CrossFit HQ will indeed make long-term changes to policies and practices around diversity and inclusion. While I have argued throughout that CrossFit under Glassman was an authoritarian populist project, CrossFit as an organization and as a practice has a transformative potential that cannot be ignored. For many, CrossFit is a place to find community (Belger, 2012), to reinvent themselves (Dawson, 2015), and to develop resiliency to the precarity and psychological distress brought about by neoliberalism, capitalism, and globalization. With the change in CrossFit’s leadership, there is the potential for CrossFit to move away from its populist origins and move toward fulfilling its promise of a more egalitarian, health-promoting, and inclusive space of fitness. For example, Walsh argues that CrossFit is a form of counter-conduct, wherein participants are encouraged to not only push the boundaries of their physical performance, but also “…there is a use in practicing the action of countering in order to prepare us for perhaps larger stakes countering elsewhere” (Walsh, 2020b, p. 156). By developing a capacity to push back against oppressive or coercive systems of power, CrossFit participants potentially develop a language of resistance that makes them active participants in the renegotiation of power and power hierarchies. This can be seen in the varied public responses to Glassman’s racist tirade in 2020. While some boxes were hesitant to negatively engage with the brand of CrossFit, numerous boxes saw this as an opportunity to push back against the often colorblind and authoritarian culture of CrossFit HQ (Edmonds et al., 2022). In so doing, the practice of resistance cultivated through CrossFit was turned on the brand itself. Stemming from this resistance was a flood of changes to the structure and capacity of CrossFit HQ. Although still fairly nascent in comparison with CrossFit’s longer history, these changes in favor of more equitable practices and increased support networks is both heartening and a potential exemplar for pushing back against authoritarian populism.

CROSSFIT’S “UNKNOWN AND UNKNOWABLE” FUTURE

103

Within these transformative moments is the kernel of potential for further social and cultural transformation. We have already seen the potential for CrossFit to make positive changes to physical culture. In particular, CrossFit has provided a space for women to negotiate and advance more muscular forms of femininity that resist dominant cultural feminine ideals (Bennett et al., 2022; Knapp, 2015; Malcom et al., 2021). Members of CrossFit have taken on leadership roles to support and develop their community; whether that be providing a lower-cost physical activity for underserved youth (Gipson et al., 2016) or organizing fundraising for community members in distress (Belger, 2012; Herz, 2014). We have seen CrossFit boxes create more inclusive physical activity spaces for groups traditionally marginalized in physical activity spaces such as the LGBTQ+ community (Walsh, 2020b), persons with disabilities (Wroten, 2017), and the elderly. We have seen dedicated CrossFitters using the space of the box to educate on issues of systemic racism and sexism, such as Stacy Pugh who re-articulated the militaristic Hero WODs to instead memorialize George Floyd (Edmonds et al., 2022). One can only speculate what would happen if these powerful grassroots forces could re-articulate CrossFit with more inclusive and diverse practices. However, as many scholars have argued, often times populism can transform into fascism (Jessop et al., 1984; Morelock, 2018; Robotham, 2020; Tomlinson & Clift, 2021). Under new leadership CrossFit’s foundational ideology, infused with survivalism, militarism, and healthism, could also have a profound negative effect. As seen in recent years, it will be up to the CrossFit community to hold their leaders accountable—a daunting task within a largely branded and decentralized form of fitness. The politics of CrossFit are enacted in each rep, each sweat angel, and each clap of encouragement. The subjectivities produced through the CrossFit practice are embedded in everyday choices and decisions— what to eat, what to wear, how to celebrate, and how to mourn. Dawson (2015) contends that CrossFit is a greedy institution, but also a reinventive one that has the capacity to transform and change individual subjectivities and alter lives. As CrossFit continues to expand, evolve, and attract new adherents, there are deliberate choices that CrossFit leadership must make to ensure that the subjectivities they create through the CrossFit practice are beneficial not only to their practitioners, but also to the communities within which boxes reside.

104

S. E. EDMONDS

References Belger, A. W. (2012). The power of community: CrossFit and the force of human connection. Victory Belt Pub. Incorporated. Bennett, H., Hauff, C., Gipson, C., & Malcom, N. (2022). CrossFit Has proven you can be muscular and still be feminine: Exploring Comparative Practices Within CrossFit. Journal of Sport Behavior, 45(3), 1–16. Berger, R. (2013). NSCA “CrossFit study” fraud? The CrossFit Journal, May, 1–5. Black, J. (2013). Making the American body: The remarkable saga of the men and women whose feats, feuds, and passions shaped fitness history. U of Nebraska Press. Bowles, N. (2015). Exclusive: on the warpath with CrossFit’s Greg Glassman. Maxim. http://www.maxim.com/maxim-man/crossfit-greg-glassman-exclus ive-2015-9 Brooks, R. (2020). CrossFit’s new CEO was asked last year about diversity. He IGNored the question and walked offstage. Buzzfeed News. https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/ryancbrooks/crossfit-ceo-que stioned-diversity-greg-glassman-george-floyd Brooks, R., & Mack, D. (2020, June 9). The Head of CrossFit has stepped dwn after tellinf staff on a zoom call, We’re Not Mourning For George Floyd. BuzzFeed News. buzzfeednews.com Carroll, N. (2014). CrossFit trainer education and certification: New programs and a new structure. CrossFit Journal. Retrieved from http://library.crossfit. com/free/pdf/CFJ_2014_06_Education_13NCarroll.pdf Clark, P. (2021). CrossFit Announces inaugural diversity, equity and inclusion council members. https://morningchalkup.com/2021/02/12/crossfitannounces-inaugural-diversity-equity-and-inclusion-council-members/ Cooper, J. N., Nwadike, A., & Macaulay, C. (2017). A Critical race theory analysis of big-time college sports: Implications for culturally responsive and race-conscious sport leadership. Journal of Issues in Intercollegiate Athletics, 10, 204–233. Dashper, K., & Fletcher, T. (2013). Introduction: Diversity, equity and inclusion in sport and leisure. Sport in Society, 16(10), 1227–1232. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/17430437.2013.821259 Dawson, M. C. (2015). CrossFit Fitness cult or reinventive institution? International review for the sociology of sport, 1012690215591793. Demby, G. (2013). Who’s really left out of the crossfit circle. NPR.org. https:// www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch/2013/09/15/222574436/whos-reallyleft-out-of-the-crossfit-circle Dworkin, S. L., & Wachs, F. L. (2009). Body panic: Gender, health, and the selling of fitness. New York University Press.

CROSSFIT’S “UNKNOWN AND UNKNOWABLE” FUTURE

105

Edmonds, S., Malcom, N. L., Gipson, C. M., & Bennett, H. (2022). They do not represent our gym: How crossfit affiliates define community as They respond to racial controversy. Sociology of Sport Journal, 1(aop), 1–9. Finnegan, W. (2021). Law enforcement and the problem of white supremacy. The New Yorker. https://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/law-enf orcement-and-the-problem-of-white-supremacy Gipson, C. M., Moore, M., Burdette, T., & Wilson, C. H. (2016). Impact of a CrossFit intervention as an after-school program for the boys and girls club. Han, A. P. (2017). Journal retracts Ohio State CrossFit study at center of lawsuits. https://retractionwatch.com/2017/06/02/journal-ret racts-ohio-state-crossfit-study-center-lawsuits/ Helm, B. (2013). Do not cross CrossFit. Inc. Magazine. https://www.inc.com/ magazine/201307/burt-helm/crossfit-empire.html Herz, J. C. (2014). Learning to breathe fire: The rise of CrossFit and the primal future of fitness. Three Rivers Press. Jessop, B., Bonnett, K., Bromley, S., & Ling, T. (1984). Authoritarian populism, two nations and Thatcherism. New Left Review(147), 32. Knapp, B. A. (2015). Rx’d and shirtless: An examination of gender in a CrossFit box. Women in Sport and Physical Activity Journal, 23(1), 42–53. Loewen, J. W. (2008). Lies my teacher told me: Everything your American history textbook got wrong. The New Press. Madden, S. (2014). Embrace the suck : What I learned at the box about hard work, (very) sore muscles, and burpees before sunrise. HarperWave, an imprint of HarperCollins Publishers. Malcom, N. L., Edmonds, S., Gipson, C., Hauff, C., & Bennett, H. (2021). Negotiating the funhouse: CrossFit Women and the looking glass athlete. Women in Sport and Physical Activity Journal, 29(2), 95–105. McCarty, P. (2013a). Dear CrossFit: Talayna deserves better. https://breakingm uscle.com/learn/dear-crossfit-talayna-deserves-better McCarty, P. (2013b). The peasants are revolting: It’s time for CrossFit affiliates to take back their name. https://breakingmuscle.com/learn/the-peasants-arerevolting-its-time-for-crossfit-affiliates-to-take-back-their-name McKenzie, S. (2013). Getting physical: The rise of fitness culture in America. University Press of Kansas Lawrence. Mestel, S. (2020). CrossFit is feeling the weight of gym owners downplaying COVID-19. Buzzfeed. https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/spe nsermestel/crossfit-coronavirus-covid Morelock, J. (2018). Introduction: The Frankfurt school and authoritarian populism—A Historical Outline. In J. Morelock (Ed.), Critical theory and authoritarian populism. University of Westminster Press.

106

S. E. EDMONDS

Newby, J. (2022). CrossFit CEO Don Faul aims to tackle “Misperceptions” in new role. https://morningchalkup.com/2022/10/04/crossfit-ceo-don-faul-aimsto-tackle-missed-perceptions-in-new-role/ Perez, A. J. (2016). CrossFit Games’ decision to award Glock handguns sparks outrage. USA TODAY . http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/2016/07/ 15/crossfit-games-glock-handgun-prize-reebok-espn/87155048/ Pitts Jr, L. (2020, June 14). Don’t say ‘I’m not a racist’, Opinion. The Seattle Times. https://www.seattletimes.com/ Pronger, B. (2002). Body fascism: Salvation in the technology of physical fitness. University of Toronto Press. Robotham, D. (2020). Populism and its others: After neoliberalism. In J. Maskovsky, Bjork-James, S. (Ed.), Beyond populism: Angry politics and the TWILIGHT of neoliberalism (pp. 23–41). West Virginia University Press. Rosman, K. (2020, June 20). CrossFit owner fostered sexist Company Culture, Workers Say. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/20/ style/greg-glassman-crossfit-sexism.html Royse, A. (2020, June 5). CrossFit, black lives and covid. https://www.rocket communityfitness.com/ Saran, D. (2020). In Defense of Greg Glassman.https://www.theabjectlesson. com/2020/06/09/in-defense-of-greg-glassman/ Tatum, B. D. (2003). Why are all the Black kids sitting together in the cafeteria? : And other conversations about race. Basic Books. Thomas, G., Devine, K., & Molnár, G. (2022). Experiences and PERCEPTIONS of women strength and conditioning coaches: A scoping review. International Sport Coaching Journal, 10(1), 78–90. Thomas, G., Guinan, J., & Molnár, G. (2021). It’s not particularly PC, you know...: Women Coaches’ performing gender in strength and conditioning. Women in Sport and Physical Activity Journal, 29(2), 106–116. Thomas, M. P., & Tufts, S. (2020). Blue solidarity: Police unions, race and authoritarian populism in North America. Work, Employment and Society, 34(1), 126–144. Tomlinson, A., & Clift, B. (2021). Populism in sport, leisure, and popular culture. Routledge. Walsh, S. L. (2020a). Eugenics and physical culture performance in the progressive era: Watch Whiteness Workout. Springer. Walsh, S. L. (2020b). Fit and Fierce:(En) Countering CrossFit. In S. L. Walsh (Ed.), Sporting performances (pp. 148–161). Routledge. Washington, M. S., & Economides, M. (2016). Strong is the new sexy: Women, CrossFit, and the postfeminist ideal. Journal of Sport & Social Issues, 40(2), 143–161.

CROSSFIT’S “UNKNOWN AND UNKNOWABLE” FUTURE

107

Williams, J. (2020). Incoming GOP lawmaker shares video of hotel room workout, citing ‘Democrat tyrannical control’ The Hill. https://thehill.com/ homenews/house/525994-incoming-gop-lawmaker-shares-video-of-hotelroom-workout-citing-democrat/ Wolf, R. (2009). The black box summit or how i got fired from the CrossFit nutrition certification. https://robbwolf.com/2009/11/24/the-black-boxsummit-or-how-i-got-fired-from-the-crossfit-nutrition-certification/ Wroten, A. (2017). How CrossFit adapts for people with disabilities. https://the mighty.com/2017/05/adapting-crossfit-for-people-with-disabilities/