You may recall that a while ago I talked about the tendency in literary theory to ‘be difficult’. Today’s topic is something related: the ubiquitous use of the word poetics. Bear with me for a moment, if you will.
We all know poetics as ‘the rules of poetry’. However, nowadays it has become bon ton to use it in all sorts of contexts. Poetics of ageing, poetics of resistance, poetics of transactivated space, you name it. People who do so, were probably inspired by American critic Stephen Greenblatt (° 1943), whose theory of cultural poetics of Renaissance society is very famous. However, Greenblatt’s cultural poetics is more than mere jargon. By using this expression instead of just culture, Greenblatt wants to recuperate the double meaning of poetics. I mean: in poetry, we can say that its system of rules (its poetics) not only influences the way people write, but is itself also influenced by the way people write. And the same is true for culture. Culture is both shaped by people’s behaviour and shapes their behaviour. Hence cultural poetics.
But why am I telling you this?
Well, I was thinking about all this yesterday when I was in the gym on the treadmill (yes, I am a strange man). And while I was running along at exactly 10.5 km/h for exactly 15:00 min. (the machine is very clear about such things), it dawned on me that actually the gym is a pretty good illustration of the aforementioned concept of poetics. Indeed, in every gym there is a certain set of unpronounced, but very real rules, which determine your behaviour, but were also created by the users of the gym. A gym poetics, if you want.
Let me explain.
A first rule that seems in place, but is only there because of people’s behaviour, is the following. In general, there are only three kinds of people visit the gym: those who look like they need it (59,5%), those who look like they don’t need it (39,5%) and those who are in-between (1%). Just to be clear, I’m part of the one percent. In fact, in my gym, I am the one percent, running on the treadmill with a fat dude on one side and an aspiring supermodel on the other.
Secondly, gym visitors seem to have created a rule concerning one’s workout kit, ‘What (not) to wear’ for the gym. Apart from oddities, such as ‘extremely short and tight shorts are allowed’, the main rule concerns men’s T-shirts. Apparently, you can only wear sleeveless T-shirts or a wife beater if your arms look like a young Arnold Schwarzenegger’s. If you do wear such an item of clothing without the proper guns to show off, you will be stared at by the rightful wearers. An additional rule is that only the sleeveless people may enter the Pure Strength part of the gym, you know, the one with the dumbbells and the mirror to look into while you lift weights.
Thirdly, it seems to be taboo in the gym which setting you use on the workout machines. It took me a while before figuring this one out, but eventually I got it. When I first started going to the gym, I was always surprised to sit down at a machine and find its setting to be way too hard for me. A biceps machine would have settings ranging from 5 to 50 kgs, and I found the setting it was on, usually 40 or 45 kgs, far too heavy. After a while, however, I noticed that it is apparently a part of the gym poetics to put the setting to 40 or 45 kgs after you’ve finished, no matter what weight you yourself pull. As to the reason for this, one can only guess.
Yet perhaps most puzzlingly, gym poetics involve a certain degree bisexuality, which apparently only applies to the male members of the gym. Indeed, on the one hand it is very accepted to marvel at each other’s bulky biceps, tough triceps or quivering quadriceps. Hell, yesterday I even saw two guys feeling each other’s biceps and making what appeared to be laudatory comments about it. Still, I had no choice but to interpret this as a curious form of bisexuality, because not a moment later, when the aforementioned supermodel walked in, the very same guys all of a sudden had some business on a machine closeby and began walking towards her as if they had a vuvuzela between their legs.
Perhaps I should go over to them one day and applaud them for their openness regarding their sexuality?
Assholes.
We all know poetics as ‘the rules of poetry’. However, nowadays it has become bon ton to use it in all sorts of contexts. Poetics of ageing, poetics of resistance, poetics of transactivated space, you name it. People who do so, were probably inspired by American critic Stephen Greenblatt (° 1943), whose theory of cultural poetics of Renaissance society is very famous. However, Greenblatt’s cultural poetics is more than mere jargon. By using this expression instead of just culture, Greenblatt wants to recuperate the double meaning of poetics. I mean: in poetry, we can say that its system of rules (its poetics) not only influences the way people write, but is itself also influenced by the way people write. And the same is true for culture. Culture is both shaped by people’s behaviour and shapes their behaviour. Hence cultural poetics.
But why am I telling you this?
Well, I was thinking about all this yesterday when I was in the gym on the treadmill (yes, I am a strange man). And while I was running along at exactly 10.5 km/h for exactly 15:00 min. (the machine is very clear about such things), it dawned on me that actually the gym is a pretty good illustration of the aforementioned concept of poetics. Indeed, in every gym there is a certain set of unpronounced, but very real rules, which determine your behaviour, but were also created by the users of the gym. A gym poetics, if you want.
Let me explain.
A first rule that seems in place, but is only there because of people’s behaviour, is the following. In general, there are only three kinds of people visit the gym: those who look like they need it (59,5%), those who look like they don’t need it (39,5%) and those who are in-between (1%). Just to be clear, I’m part of the one percent. In fact, in my gym, I am the one percent, running on the treadmill with a fat dude on one side and an aspiring supermodel on the other.
Secondly, gym visitors seem to have created a rule concerning one’s workout kit, ‘What (not) to wear’ for the gym. Apart from oddities, such as ‘extremely short and tight shorts are allowed’, the main rule concerns men’s T-shirts. Apparently, you can only wear sleeveless T-shirts or a wife beater if your arms look like a young Arnold Schwarzenegger’s. If you do wear such an item of clothing without the proper guns to show off, you will be stared at by the rightful wearers. An additional rule is that only the sleeveless people may enter the Pure Strength part of the gym, you know, the one with the dumbbells and the mirror to look into while you lift weights.
Thirdly, it seems to be taboo in the gym which setting you use on the workout machines. It took me a while before figuring this one out, but eventually I got it. When I first started going to the gym, I was always surprised to sit down at a machine and find its setting to be way too hard for me. A biceps machine would have settings ranging from 5 to 50 kgs, and I found the setting it was on, usually 40 or 45 kgs, far too heavy. After a while, however, I noticed that it is apparently a part of the gym poetics to put the setting to 40 or 45 kgs after you’ve finished, no matter what weight you yourself pull. As to the reason for this, one can only guess.
Yet perhaps most puzzlingly, gym poetics involve a certain degree bisexuality, which apparently only applies to the male members of the gym. Indeed, on the one hand it is very accepted to marvel at each other’s bulky biceps, tough triceps or quivering quadriceps. Hell, yesterday I even saw two guys feeling each other’s biceps and making what appeared to be laudatory comments about it. Still, I had no choice but to interpret this as a curious form of bisexuality, because not a moment later, when the aforementioned supermodel walked in, the very same guys all of a sudden had some business on a machine closeby and began walking towards her as if they had a vuvuzela between their legs.
Perhaps I should go over to them one day and applaud them for their openness regarding their sexuality?
Assholes.
No comments:
Post a Comment