Physiotherapists are very interested in fitness, leisure and sport, but they rarely discuss the history of these ideas, or the place of physical therapies (massage, manipulations and mobilisations, remedial exercise, electrotherapy, hydrotherapy etc.) in the promotion of the health of the population. There are a number of reasons why I think we should pay more attention to this specific history. Firstly, it’s one of the few areas where physical therapies have made a genuine contribution to the health of the population. I don’t mean the health of individual patients that, taken together, amounts to the health of the population, but rather an approach applied to the population as a whole – as one organic entity. Secondly, I believe that if physiotherapists had a better appreciation for the history of the ideas that underpin their practice, they might be less prone to believe that the latest push to get people exercising is anything new. Thirdly, we might be less inclined to believe that people today face unique and unprecedented challenges. The truth is, as far back as Greco-Roman times, people have always been concerned about the fitness of the population, and people have always turned to the physical therapies for an answer.
Any physiotherapist wanting to know more about this history of the practices that are the cornerstone of the profession often has to go outside physiotherapy to find information. Most research today focuses on the efficacy of specific technique rather than the etymology of the ideas, so coming across a recent book by Charlotte Macdonald (Strong, Beautiful, and Modern: National Fitness in Britain, New Zealand, Australia and Canada, 1935-1960, 2011, British Columbia: UBC Press, ISBN 9780774825406) made good reading (you can find some additional two book reviews here and here, and a section of the book as a taster here.)
The book covers five main themes:
- National fitness in England and Scotland – with a very physiotherapy-relevant chapter title: ‘Movement is Life’
- Physical welfare as the people’s entitlement in New Zealand
- National fitness in New South Wales and across Australia
- National fitness in Canada
- and Healthy bodies, states and modernity
The book addresses a time immediately preceding World War II and the immediate post-war period. This is an interesting time in the history of the fitness movement, because most research traditionally concentrates on the role of fitness in the eugenics movement which came to prominence in the early years of the 20th century. Eugenics was inspired by a Darwinian belief in the survival of the fittest (and was pioneered by Darwin’s cousin – Francis Galton, 1822-1911 – a polymath, who, amongst other things, invented the statistical concept of correlation), and exercise was seen as an important vehicle to ensure the vital strength of the population.
Most countries that embraced eugenics nurtured beliefs about the impending loss of racial purity, and fitness advocates argued that the whole population’s health was at risk from becoming sedentary and soft. Out of this vat of bile emerged some quite extraordinary characters. No less so than Eugene Sandow (1867-1925) – the subject of a brilliant book by Caroline Daly (Leisure and Pleasure: Reshaping and Revealing the New Zealand Body 1900-1960, 2013, Auckland, Auckland University Press, ISBN 1869405048.)
Sandow is probably responsible for New Zealand’s beach culture. He was a performance artist and bodybuilder who would demonstrate astonishing feats of strength to enraptured audiences. But it was his almost naked appearance and toned body that caused so much interest to people who had, until then, been very Victorian.¹
Early twentieth-century New Zealanders moved around a lot, traveling the length and breadth of the country in search of work and better opportunities. But where’ve the went, they could probably join a gym or a physical culture class. All over New Zealand men who had trained under Sandow in London, or who had ‘graduated’ from one of his mail-order courses, were setting themselves up as directors of Sandow schools. Some women climbed onto the bandwagon, offering classes in dancing and deportment alongside Sandow exercise programmes. A major leisure revolution was taking place (Daley, 2013, pp.42-3).
I’ve written elsewhere about the role that physical culture played in New Zealand’s early physiotherapy history (see here), but Macdonald’s excellent book reminded that there is always so much more to learn about our present practices from lessons of the past.
¹ Sandow’s show of physical form would become a major influence on the way anatomy books were presented from the 1930s onwards. With homoerotic irony, authors turned away from the simple line drawings of earlier editions, preferring instead the high resolution, images of muscular men to display a visual map of the muscles of the body.
Pete smith says
Enjoyed your blog post and and wanted to bring Alan Radleys the illustrated history of physical culture to your attention. I have volume one and and keep going back to it
Dave Nicholls says
Thanks for the recommendation. I’ll hunt down Radley’s book and have a read. Regards, Dave.
Blaise says
Interesting post, Dave. Thank you.
Sorry it’s taken me so long to get around to reading it!
You can see the mark of eugenics in a great deal of the art, photography and advertising of the 1930’s. There are certainly interesting things to unpack from previous cultural influences on physiotherapy.
The concept of improving ‘strength’ in particular hangs around in our armamentarium, and the subsequent conflating of weakness and pain (all social constructs, perhaps.)
I wonder if this persisting line through our professional culture contributes to why there are so few therapists who identify themselves as having a disability? Does our job have roots in the desire to ‘normalise’ (read weed out the weak, the impure)?
All rather frighteningly ‘Kraft durch Freude’!
Dave Nicholls says
Lovely comment thanks Blaise.
There seems to be a quotidian eugenicism in a great deal of ‘modern’ medicine. One only has to look at indigenous ‘unscientific’ approaches to health to see how the tone of normalisation comes through strongly. Foucault saw normalisation as an essential disciplinary technology and this is something I’ve done a lot of writing around in the past. This is, of course, not saying that normalisation is bad, indeed it’s been very productive for medicine, but we should ask what is being denied when we blithely accept that physical fitness, idealised form and performance, and rational medicine are desirable.
Thanks for your provocative comments. Much appreciated.