Isolation or community: What happens at calisthenics facilities?

© playparc GmbH

The popularity of calisthenics facilities seems to remain high. Starting with the construction of the first sports parks and strength training facilities in New York at the beginning of the 2000s, they initially only were available in large cities. Today, there is a calisthenics facility in almost every medium-sized municipality, and they can even be found in many smaller communities. Whether in parks, on meadows or in multifunctional sports facilities: more and more opportunities are being created for this type of outdoor physical training, which have become increasingly popular among more and more people. 

Even if the term "calisthenics facility" is not always used for these facilities, the construction of freely accessible outdoor sports facilities where strength, endurance, flexibility and coordination can be improved with the help of one's own body weight on parallel bars, wall bars, dangling ladders and pull-up bars is in full trend. In short: Calisthenics facilities are increasingly shaping municipal, public sports and exercise spaces and are increasingly becoming an identity-forming object for those municipalities that use sports and exercise as a means of expression for the image of a cool, modern, juvenile and active city or simply as an instrument of urban development.

Because one thing is clear: as a street workout, calisthenics does not only offer simple, effective muscle training enriched with elements from typical scene sports such as break dance, hip hop and obstacle courses, from which the exercises draw their own expressive identity; rather, it also conveys an urban, contemporary attitude to life. In addition to performing basic gymnastic exercises such as push-ups and pull-ups - which have basically been widespread and sufficiently well-known since Friedrich Ludwig Jahn set up the first public gymnastics area in Hasenheide in Berlin - it is therefore the combination of physical activity with rhythm that is characteristic for the performance of movement sequences in calisthenics; transfer movements turn strength training into a choreography with aesthetic flair. The distinctive overall package of athletic training in the fresh air, a musical backdrop, its own language with specific terms for certain exercises (e.g. "human flag"), a fitness-oriented diet and clothing makes calisthenics what it is: a lifestyle sports type with hype potential.

But who practices this type of sports? The main clientele is certainly among young or adolescents, often male athletes, for whom calisthenics is a modern and attractive form of physical training. However, the users of these outdoor sports facilities also include people of different age groups, fitness athletes, occasional athletes, tourists or even whole families. In short, calisthenics is a type of sports for everyone.

That’s why calisthenics facilities are so attractive

From a municipal point of view, a big advantage of calisthenics facilities is that they require comparatively little space, low-maintenance, they are vandalism-proof and durable - and at the same time they focus on the health megatrend. The potential to reach many people with calisthenics facilities in public spaces and motivate them to do fitness-oriented workouts can be explained by the character of the sports and the prevailing spirit of the times. Part of the character of calisthenics is that it can be practised informally and at any time, free of predefined training and opening hours. No one has to be a member of a club, customer of a studio or other sports provider to practise calisthenics. Moreover, since it basically only requires the use of one's own body weight, training is possible anywhere, be it at home or at the corresponding, specially conceived and designed facilities with their highly challenging character. The practice of the sports at publicly accessible facilities is thus associated with no great costs or liabilities. Even though the location of the calisthenics facilities in the fresh air causes a certain weather dependency or resistance, it also enables a proximity to natural sports that cannot be provided with the same or similar quality in gyms, gymnastics halls and fitness studios.

The use of such facilities is also associated with further promises of freedom that do not apply in this form to other forms of sports. In principle, there is independence from coaches or trainers as well as from training partners. The athletes themselves are responsible for organising their training practices and setting their training goals, which is why calisthenics can be described as a typical example of informal sports (Bindel, 2008). This independence and freedom as well as its great flexibility contribute to a large extent to the attractiveness of this type of sports - as with all informal sports activities. 

The media presence on the internet and in social media accompanies and reinforces this attractiveness. YouTube in particular, as an online video platform, offers countless instructional videos on training design, whether for beginners or advanced athletes. This includes not only tutorials on technique, but also periodisation of strength training with ready-made training plans and videos on common mistakes and misconceptions in training design. This significantly lowers the barriers to acquiring an expertise in calisthenics and enables a highly individualised and autonomous sports engagement. Calisthenics is thus a type of sports for everyone, free from dependencies and any constraints. 

However, it is precisely the social aspect, the experience of team spirit and community that constitutes the great value of sports for society, the reason why it is supported by politics and on which many benefits are based - starting with the tax allowances for trainers to the special tax treatment of sports clubs and associations to the state-funded infrastructure. Do the calisthenics sports, possibly as an expression and symbol of isolation and increasing individualisation, run counter to this aim of promoting social cohesion through sports, or even more: does it even undermine the values of sports as such due to its structural peculiarities?

Calisthenics in the sociological context of individualisation

This question can be answered from the sociological observer's perspective of society with the prominent keyword of individualisation. More precisely, this refers to the "individualisation thesis" that Beck developed in the mid-1980s as part of his social analyses in the course of the development from an industrial to a risk society. Briefly and concisely summarised, the individualisation thesis means that, as a result of progressive modernisation, the traditional social relations of the members of society - family, class or class - are dissolving and people can develop life plans and follow life paths far more individually than before. They have the freedom at any time to withdraw from the normative customs and obligations of their social origins and gain enormous degrees of freedom for individual life planning (Beck, 1986). This can be reduced to the short formula: Everyone is the architect of his or her own fortune. 

However, the possibilities of independently planned and coordinated lifestyles go hand in hand with a significantly increased risk of failure or of losing touch with society. This is because the detachment from a fixed and institutionalised social structure means at the same time the loss of all the security conveyed by this, be it with regard to permitted actions, beliefs or guiding norms and values. The point of reference for the security of one's own way of acting, the social corrective, is lost in the process, which is why, according to Gugutzer, the individual must "make himself the centre of his own life" (2008, p. 91). On the one hand, this offers many opportunities for self-discovery and for shaping independent ways of life; on the other hand, the likelihood of insecurities and orientation problems in leading one's life increases. The term individualisation thus means two things at once: the immensely increased freedom of choice and the constant compulsion to make decisions.

Calisthenics = individualised sports?

In order to minimise the risk of wrong decisions, individuals in modern society certainly use socially produced patterns. In doing so, however, they no longer refer only to the common and traditional institutions established in society. As Baur and Burrmann (2004) explain, it is precisely among young people that they find little acceptance, especially in sports. Thus, the demand for socially disengaging forms of organisation has grown among adolescents and young adults. They increasingly find themselves in independently formed, even ephemeral, but above all supposedly casual communities or scenes, which can also be observed in the differentiation of the sports landscape.

If this becomes the norm, the consequences for organised sports will be far-reaching. The key words discussed in connection with this, such as lack of solidarity, organisational fatigue and disenchantment with democracy, or even the rejection of voluntary commitment, make sports clubs and associations fear that they will suffer an increasing loss of importance. This is because a declining acceptance of the traditional, community-oriented values of sports promotes tendencies towards isolation and loneliness, in which the individual places himself and his body at the centre of his own sporting interest and commitment. Not the integration into the community of the club, not the enrichment of club life are points of orientation that serve the individual as a guideline for sporting action; they are primarily or exclusively oriented towards their own desires, needs and goals. Digitisation, also in sporting settings, also seems to considerably expand the possibilities of replacing club sports with individual sports

Against this backdrop, the question arises as to whether community values lose significance in such types of sports like calisthenics, which seems to be prototypical for individualisation and separation processes in sports. Or do calisthenics facilities, especially when they are freely accessible and attractive in public spaces at all times, contribute to the formation of new social communities? Does the practice of calisthenics nevertheless lead to a search for social contact or for "like-minded friends", according to Krings (2016)? 

Community building at calisthenics facilities

The fact that individualisation tendencies are not synonymous with social disintegration can be well proven by sociological findings. Even if it seems paradoxical: individualistic values do not contradict community building. Young people in particular pursue peer group-oriented strategies and seek meaningful bonds and the support of people who are not directly part of the family environment. Such bonding patterns can also be found in the calisthenics context. A survey of users of calisthenics facilities conducted in 2020 in the Paderborn area (n=28; Schmieding, 2020) shows that the vast majority of people visit the facilities to train together with others and to meet like-minded people. There is a subjective feeling of togetherness, which is mainly based on

• the exchange of Calisthenics-specific knowledge (96% of respondents),
• a sense of connection to others who also train at the facility (83 %),
• a concrete collaboration with other people to achieve goals in calisthenics (63 %). 

Nevertheless, the findings also indicate that calisthenics is deliberately seized as a way to avoid club ties, fixed schedules and predetermined social constellations. But perhaps it is the same here as it was earlier with other sports: A magic dwells in each beginning, and in the end the tendency towards formalisation wins, which leads to new sports clubs emerging from the community at the sports facility at some point. 

Individuality meets community

In conclusion, calisthenics facilities can function as physical and social anchors for communal experience and values. They allow for atomised training of individuals. The common interest in this kind of sports is at the same time the basis for initiating and consolidating community building.

Literature

Baur, J. & Burrmann, U. (2004). Informelle und vereinsgebundene Sportengagements von Jugendlichen: ein empirisch gestützter Vergleich (Informal and club-based sports engagement of adolescents: an empirically supported comparison). In E. Balz & D. Kuhlmann (Eds.), Sportengagements von Kindern und Jugendlichen. Grundlagen und Möglichkeiten informellen Sporttreibens (Sports engagement of children and adolescents. Foundations and possibilities of informal sports activities), (pp. 17-30). Aachen: Meyer & Meyer

Beck, U. (1986). Risikogesellschaft. Auf dem Weg in eine andere Moderne (Risk society. On the way to a new modern age). Frankfurt am Main: Edition Suhrkamp

Bindel, T. (2008). Soziale Regulierung in informellen Sportgruppen (Social regulation in informal sports groups). Hamburg: Czwalina

Gugutzer, R. (2008). Sport im Prozess gesellschaftlicher Individualisierung (Sports in the process of social individualisation). In K. Weis & R. Gugutzer (Eds.), Handbuch Sportsoziologie (Handbook of the Sociology of Sports) (pp. 88-99). Schorndorf: Hofmann

Krings, B.-J. (2016). Strategien der Individualisierung. Neue Konzepte und Befunde zur soziologischen Individualisierungsthese (Strategies of Individualisation. New concepts and findings on the sociological individualisation thesis). Bielefeld: Transcript-Verlag

Schmieding, R. (2020). Vereinzelungs- und Vergemeinschaftsprozesse an Calisthenics-Anlagen. Zur Relevanz designierter Sporträume bei der sozialen Isolation und Integration im Sport (Isolation and community processes at calisthenics facilities. On the relevance of designated sports spaces in social isolation and integration in sports). (Master's thesis University of Paderborn; unpublished).