Granting the privilege to grunt: Reconceptualizing the perception of grunting in gyms

Abstract

For many gym goers, grunting in times of bodily exertion is perceived as a voluntary performance, a self-evident expression for which they can waive any responsibility. Drawing on a symbolic interaction approach, this paper provides a novel examination of grunting as a social phenomenon. It demonstrates the role of grunting as a social symbol and its connection to social spaces and identities, gender norms, and power relations. The scope of sociological research on grunting in times of bodily exertion is relatively limited and often relegated to the context of biomedicine. Therefore, the contribution of this paper is to address the lacuna of research that focuses on the link between grunting as a socially constructed phenomenon and its sociocultural implications. Ethnographic research was conducted for 3 years in two gyms, using a combination of participant observation and semi-structured interviews. Key findings illustrate three themes toward the role of grunting: grunting and socialization; grunting and space; and finally, grunting and situational adjustment. It is argued that grunting at the gym is socially constructed, a rational and voluntary action that is negotiated, controlled, and adjusted according to the situation.

Keywords

gym grunting symbolic interaction gender power relations

Introduction

This paper discusses gender aspects of grunting in gyms. It examines the way gym exercisers, mainly men, learn to grunt via a process of socialization. The taken-for-granted assumption that the grunt is an involuntary, “natural” reaction is examined and questioned. More specifically, the researchers are interested in pointing out the role of grunting as a social symbol and its connection to social space and identities, gender norms, and power relations. To date, there has been a lack of research exploring grunting per se in times of bodily exertion from a sociological lens. Therefore, the contribution of this paper is addressing the lacuna of research, which focuses on the link between grunting as a socially constructed phenomenon and its sociocultural implications. Following Bourke’s (2014: 86) claim that bodies and sensory perceptions “are not pure ‘soma’ but are constituted by social interaction and linguistic processes,” it will be argued that gym exercisers’ experiences of their bodies are shaped by environmental context and cultural processes, including language, gender, and power relations. As such, the authors sought to address the following research questions:

How is grunting performed in the gym in times of physical exertion?

How does grunting serve to reinforce gender power relations?

The gym as a social phenomenon

Since the 1980s, the gym has become a conspicuous social, cultural, and economic phenomenon (Andreasson and Johansson, 2014). Fitness bodies and the social standards they demand have become “an inherent part of our contemporary consumer culture” (p. 164). The expanding research on this subject suggests that the gym plays a significant role in shaping perceptions and habits of health, fitness, and pleasure (Awruk and Janowski, 2016). “Gym work” provides the opportunity for people not only to increase bodily capital but also the capacity to perform more confidently in their various social roles outside the gym (Stewart et al., 2013). It appears that the gym affects its users’ style and quality of life in terms of their social and spousal relationships (Johansson, 1996), and also contributes to their individual selves through commitment to their bodies as a project (Crossley, 2006). The gym affects identities and represents body definitions, which are reproduced by its clients and are constantly changing through active negotiations (Sassatelli, 1999). Much of the growing research on gyms in the past decade discusses the connection between the gym and social identities like gender, age, and sex. The studies illuminate the way in which various social identities are strengthened and reproduced in the space of the gym (Lev and Hertzog, 2017; Salvatore and Marecek, 2010; Tulle and Dorrer, 2012). In the context of the material environment of the gym and the extent to which this provides a “sanctioned” space for certain bodily behaviors, it is important to stress the manner in which it “is informed by the norms, values, and logic that govern the gym environment” (Andreasson and Johansson, 2014: 84). For example, in the study by Coen et al.(2020), the authors illustrate how material objects such as weights and gym clothing actively contribute to the materialization of a stark gender identity divide between women and men in the gym. In this context, the socio-spatial environment within the gym sets the stage for the normalization of social identities in exercise participation in the gym (Coen et al., 2018). The physical layout of the gym also contributes to the gender divide by creating a gym culture which seems to favor “male” territory. In this reality, gyms are often divided into functional areas for aerobic classes, cardiovascular machines, weight training machines, and free weights, which contribute to perpetuating gender identities and expectations through what is perceived as “feminine” and “masculine” materials (Sassatelli, 1999).

Grunting in sports fields

Grunting in professional sport contexts has been realized as a major topic in the biomedical field (see Chernozub et al., 2019). Grunting performances are perceived as common practice among athletes such as tennis players and martial art participants; therefore, it is not surprising that they have become a common sphere of study. For example, some studies focus on the physiological aspects such as questioning the way grunting enhanced ball velocity (Callison et al., 2014) and its effect on forehand force in tennis players (O’Connell et al., 2014). Studies on martial arts emphasize the benefit of grunting for the athlete engaged in the sport to gain the upper hand against an opponent. For example, in the Sinnett et al. (2018) study, the researchers demonstrate the way grunting may distract an opponent, leading to slower and error prone responses, and increases athletes’ kicking power. These studies focus on grunting as a tool to aid athletic performance and do not delve into the sociocultural implications, or more specifically into social issues such as gender norms and power relations. It is important to provide a clearer conceptualization of grunting to distinguish it from heavy breathing in times of physical exertion. While the latter takes place mainly to supply enough oxygen to the body, often does not require learning and, at least in our study, was “oblivious” to any social situations, grunting is often purposefully performed among gym exercisers. It is utilized to achieve something. Moreover, it requires a process of socialization by peers, and is often manipulated to obtain social recognition. However, this is not to say that all noises are purposefully acted such as those which come unbeckoned, for example, an exclamation of pain when a person feels sharpness in his/her knee or back. While grunting was something the first author witnessed frequently while visiting the gym, his focal point is that the grunt, as part of the gym environment, is not sudden and involuntary, but negotiated and calculated in times of physical exertion. Additionally, it should be noted that forced exhalations were often found to be preliminary to grunting. Many exercisers in the study began their workout exhaling forcefully, and completed with grunting and often, male exercisers started with forced exhalations, but proceeded to grunt as they became more comfortable in the gym's space. The differentiation between the sound of forced exhalation and grunting ought to be defined; forced exhalation is a breathy, airier, sound, whereas grunting is guttural. It should be stressed that in our study, both sounds are voluntary and learned through a process of socialization.

However, over the past two decades the sociological perspective penetrated sports fields, deconstructing bodily sensations and reactions and highlighting the lived experience of the “sporting body” and the way it is socially constructed during times of physical exertion. The study by Lev (2019) on the way beginner long-distance runners learn to derive pleasure and contentment in times of pain and bodily distress (e.g. exhaling heavily, increased pulse, and muscle soreness) offers a further example for this argument. Lev argues that feeling high from long-distance running can be achieved through a process of socialization conveyed by the runner's peer group. He stresses that deriving pleasure in times of running “cannot happen in a vacuum – without a process of reframing beginner runners’ negative sensations and reinterpreting them as enjoyable” (p. 11). In another example, a study by McNarry et al. (2020) demonstrates the way competitive swimmers experience bodily sensations, such as discomfort and soreness, and the manner in which they embrace these sensations to gain athleticism and bodily capital. Perceived as inevitable components of competitive swimming, these mental and physical hardships serve to frame the swimmers’ sensations as positive and rewarding.

Gender and space

Some of the studies on gyms elaborate on how these social frameworks enhance polarized gender identities: masculinity versus femininity (Johansson, 1996). Although gyms are potentially sites for improving health, male performances of grunting and groaning (Coen et al., 2018) turn gyms to “places where gendered inequities in health opportunities emerge and are sustained” (p. 18). Following de Beauvoir’s (1956) famous claim that a woman is not born a woman but becomes one, it will be argued that a similar claim is relevant to men. The ethnography on gyms, presented in this article, demonstrates the role of grunting in conveying the image of manhood and control, connected to physical characteristics. Thus, performing “appropriate” grunting contributes to fostering males’ identity and brotherhood while expressing an essential difference from females’ identity and physical skills. This argument derives support from the claim by Brace-Govan (2004) that the connection between maleness and physical domination, and the expectation that men should always be bigger and stronger promises that the male “socially constructed superior position and strength will retain its association with physical force” (p. 527). This construction, it is argued, involves exerting control of men in the space and in discourse through indirect and direct messages. The paper aims to highlight the “hidden agenda” in the gym (Andreasson and Johansson, 2014), which “has an enormous influence on how we perceive and imagine the relation between bodies, body ideals, and health” (p. 164). Discussing the role of physical and institutional aspects in constructing gender power gaps, Craig and Liberty (2007) illustrate how the gym's design and the process of accepting female members reproduce males’ hegemony. “Behaving like men” implies that female trainees are imitating male patterns of behavior and their ways of demonstrating control over the space. Thus, they contribute inadvertently to perpetuating gender power relations and males’ patterns of exhibiting domination. Examining females’ agency in gyms, Richardson (2008) argued that by demonstrating an exceptional, masculine, lean body, female bodybuilding is perpetuating inequality of the gendered social order in practice. By consistently wearing makeup on stage and performing erotic dancing in front of an audience, female athletes comply with the prevailing traditional norms and obey them. Moreover, Shilling and Bunsell (2009) argued that in violating the norms of what it means to look and be feminine, the female bodybuilder transgresses the hegemonic ideals of femininity and becomes a “deviant” or a “gender outlaw.”

However, there has been significant headway over the past few years in females’ undermining gender barriers in males’ perceived territory in the gym where dichotomized concepts of femininity and masculinity prevail. For example, Hertzog and Lev (2019) demonstrate women's efforts to destabilize male dominance in gyms in Tel Aviv by showing off physical skills. Males’ response to the threat on their perceived monopoly over physical strength at the gym takes place through latent techniques. Using military symbols is one example of males’ efforts to preserve the macho atmosphere in response to the females’ physical achievements and growing conspicuousness in the masculine stronghold at the gym. Moreover, Lev and Hertzog (2017) assert that “even where aggressive reactions towards violating gender dictates are expressed, a full separation of gender spheres of activity in the gyms does not exist” (p. 14).

Grunting and symbolic interaction

For symbolic interactionists, social interactions are always a fragile matter; after all, “the performer must act with expressive responsibility, since many minor, inadvertent acts happen to be well designed to convey impressions inappropriate at the time” (Goffman, 1959: 208). By the shared definition of the situation individuals strive to control their impression in accordance with their plans. Symbolic interaction is based on an interpretive process of the meanings attached by the person in dealing with the objects he/she encounters. For Blumer (1986: 11) “an object is anything that can be indicated or referred to.” He reminded us that “objects” are not limited to physical objects and may also include “abstract objects” (e.g. principles, ideas, and sounds). Following Blumer, we take the grunt in the gym as an object which is manipulated to form gender norms and power relations. After all, as Blumer pointed out, the meanings of cultural objects are both socially produced and fabricated through the process of social interaction. Following Goffman, Miller’s (2010) theory of material culture attempted to draw links between the way tangible things, called by Miller stuff, make us just as much as we make them. Using the term, the humility of things, Miller argued that the power of stuff is derived from its tendency to be taken for granted while in its “proper” place, and therefore not to be seen:

The less we are aware of them, the more powerfully they can determine our expectation, by setting the scene and ensuring appropriate behaviour, without being open to challenge. They determine what takes place to the extent that we are unconscious of their capacity to do so (p. 50).

Furthermore, moving from different social situations requires social actors to be engaged in a process of “situational adjustment,” turning themselves into the kind of individual the situation demands (Becker, 1964). In this realm, the individual can be perceived as a “fabricator of impressions involved in the all-too-human task of staging a performance” (Goffman, 1959: 252). Relating to the context of gyms, it appears that gestures such as grunting, throwing the dumbbells on the floor after a set, and performing “high fives” are all part of an “environment of objects” (Mead, 1934) and can be considered a kind of “presentation of self” (Goffman, 1959). More specifically, the gym goer is an actor who has front and back regions of behavior. The “front region of behavior” refers to the place the performance is given, where the actor engages in and performs his/her role for the audience (other gym goers), while the “back region of behavior” is considered a place where the performer can step out of character and cease to play a part for an audience. Goffman reminded us that the “front” must be convincing—in line with social standards and expectations. Goffman's dramaturgical approach offers a conceptual framework for comprehending the performances in sports especially where pressure of impression management is considerably high (Dumitriu, 2014). Analyzing exercisers’ performances in sports fields through Goffman's theoretical lens has been explored by a number of scholars in 2020 to observe and analyze social actors’ behavior such as the managing of identities in times of pain among distance runners (Lev, 2020), challenges in maintaining the front region among high-profile athletes (Roderick and Allen-Collinson, 2020), and transitioning to a coaching identity and the lifecycle of elite athletes in becoming coaches (Lev and Weinish, 2020). Following the studies discussed above, the authors perceive grunting at the gym as an “object” which arises out of social interactions. Hence, the paper will elaborate on the social meanings of grunting: the way it is experienced and modified through an interpretative process of gym exercisers and trainers, as part of their interactions.

Methods

The article is based on the first author's ethnographic study of two gyms in the metropolis of Tel Aviv, analyzed by both authors. The first author is a male, a social anthropologist, a sports therapist, and a former professional athlete. As a sports therapist, the first author had previously worked and trained regularly in both gyms and therefore was profoundly familiar with the gyms and their members. The other author is a female, a social anthropologist, and a gender studies scholar. The authors have been studying gyms together for the last 7 years; whereas the male author carried out his field work in gyms in Tel Aviv, the female author carried out her field work in a gym in a suburban region.

The conceptual framework of the article is associated with symbolic interaction. This perspective entails profound considerations of “down to earth” social interactions and the subjective processes involved in participants gaining required information and personal involvement in ongoing activity. This understanding follows the claim by Blumer (1986) that “the activities of the collectivity” should be seen “as being formed through a process of designation and interpretation” (p. 21).

For a period of over 4 years, the first author carried out participant observations in two different gyms, with a similar gender breakdown, located in the north and center of the cosmopolitan city of Tel Aviv. The data were collected on different days of the week and at different times of the day, visiting the gyms four times a week. One gym, located in the north part of Tel Aviv, within a country club in the heart of an upper-middle-class residential neighborhood, is family oriented and targeted to those striving for overall fitness and wellness goals. This gym is frequented by influential professionals in the Israeli market. There are two halls in the gym: the first one contains aerobic equipment, and the second, in which mostly men are training, contains strength training equipment and free weights. The second gym is located in the center of Tel Aviv and is frequented mainly by middle class attendees aged 17–40 years. This commercial gym targets a heterogeneous population comprised of a diverse range of individuals, mainly students, singles, and members of the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, and Questioning (LGBTQ) community. Aerobics classes at the gym are attended mainly by women. In the afternoon, martial arts lessons take place, attended mostly by men. The hall with strength training and aerobic equipment is also attended mainly by men.

Additionally, semi-structured interviews were carried out with 10 men and 8 women, between the ages of 25 and 45 years. The interviewees were informed about their participation in the study. These interviews contributed in gaining novel insights that emerged from the interviewees’ narratives and the meanings they attributed to their lived experiences in the gyms. Prior to the beginning of each interview, the participants were briefed on the study's aims and methods. They were asked mainly about their first-hand experiences regarding their workouts. Semi-structured interviews were employed mainly because they encourage participants to bring up anecdotes in which they reveal the importance and the context of events, their feelings, and behavior (Sparkes and Smith 2013). Each interview lasted between 60 and 90 min. Interviews took place and were recorded in quiet coffee shops. While visiting the gyms and carrying out regular workouts, the first author used his smartphone to write down field notes. In both gyms numerous informal conversations took place before, during, and after workout sessions and classes. Informal conversations provided many opportunities to talk and learn about the participants in more unstructured and spontaneous ways, mainly regarding workout experiences. These encounters were an important addition to this study, supplementing the semi-structured interviews. In addition, documents such as newsletters, advertising flyers, and posters were examined. All raw data were collected in Hebrew and translated by the first author to English.

Thematic analysis was employed to analyze data to deconstruct text and find explicit rationalizations and their implicit significance (Hesse-Biber and Leavy, 2006; Richards, 2009) and also to provide a technique to see and discern common or shared meanings and social experiences (Braun et al., 2016). To this end, the authors immersed themselves in the data by analytically reading through transcripts and creating themes. The analysis centered on how gym goers express exertion during workouts, what assumptions they make in interpreting their experiences, and what kind of world is revealed through their accounts in times of bodily distress. Overarching themes produced were: grunting as a process of socialization, grunting and gender, grunting and control of space, and grunting and situational adjustment. After generating these themes, the following steps were taken, striving to focus on coherent explanations among the categories. This step involved a process of exploring the relationship between themes and processing how the themes intertwined to create a broader picture of the data. Subsequently, four general conclusions are discussed: grunting among gym goers is a social product and to a large extent, voluntary; grunting is discerned by gender codes, the breaching of which leads to negative sanctions; grunting is utilized to dominate and control space; and finally, grunting is adjusted to the social situation. Describing these themes and examining the ways gym goers experience their reaction in times of physical exertion, the literature served to highlight the socio-cultural perspective of grunting. Thus, a symbolic interaction perspective was implemented as a prominent theoretical framework with which to encompass the findings.

Ethical considerations required several steps, as mentioned by others (e.g. Birt et al., 2016): receiving a signed consent form from the participants expressing their agreement to participate in the study and conducting member checking to receive the participants’ approval of data analysis. Member checking was used to establish the tenet of credibility and trustworthiness of the research study's findings. While this process can be perceived as controversial and complex and should be treated with caution given ethical dilemmas, care was taken to allow participants to comment and criticize openly. The first author provided the participants with audio recordings and drafts of the final accounts of their interviews and also shared their input to be included in the published paper. In this way, participants were given the opportunity to view and approve their contributions during the research process (Creswell, 2009). However, following Sparkes and Smith (2013) it should be stressed that the author did not take participants’ feedback as direct validation or refutation of his inferences, rather, as an additional layer of information and data.

Findings

Learning to grunt

Bourke (2014) suggests that there is nothing “natural” about non-linguistic gestures such as groaning, facial expressions and bodily postures in times of pain. Although these gestures are often perceived among patients as profoundly embedded in our physiology, Bourke argues that they are grounded in a process of socialization. Following Bourke, the authors contend that there is nothing natural about the “grunt” in the gym. Rather, grunting in times of bodily exertion emerges through socialization processes related to participating in peer groups. It appears that the gym goer's grunting is prompted by “the tradition of his group” or by the social status that “requires this kind of expression…” (Goffman, 1959: 6). It should be stressed that grunting is not a rare occurrence and was observed each time the first author visited the gym. While it is not to be said that every veteran male gym goer in the gym is grunting in times of physical exertion, the act of exhaling loudly, and often subsequent grunting, was found to be a particularly common practice among veteran male gym goers, perceived by them as a “natural” physiological reaction. Thus, David, a 39-year-old, and experienced gym goer, explains:

There is nothing you can do about it [grunting], this is natural, it's not that I think about it before or do it deliberately, I truly believe that every organism acts in this way in times of physical exertion.

Trainers in the gym can also play a role as socializing agents of grunting. It appears that as part of personal interactions with the gyms’ trainers who teach techniques of lifting weights and of using the resistance machines, the latter often give instructions of how to exhale “properly” during physical exertion. In some cases, such instructions contain a preliminary interaction, preparing the exerciser to perform the grunt. For example, Tom, a 31-year-old, novice gym goer, started his first workout with his trainer correcting his technique and range of motion. At one point the trainer said to Tom: “Listen, you must exhale during the exertion, this is very important, not only because it's healthier but also because you’ll be able to lift more.” Tom replied that he IS exhaling during exertion, but he does it quietly. The trainer replied, “Are you serious? Exhale like a man, don't be embarrassed. I can't hear you. Look at the guys around you. You hear how they exhale during exertion that is because they understand how important it is.”

Novice gym goers do not automatically tend to grunt during their first workout in the gym. In fact, no physically “weak” gym goers (those lifting relatively light weights) were observed grunting in the gym. The grunting seemed to be preserved only for those “built” gym goers who lift relatively heavy weights. However, in becoming more skillful and more experienced in lifting heavy weights, weight-lifting exercisers will often be offered “tips” from trainers or veteran gym goers on how to enhance their performance. A dialogue between two men offers an example for this occurrence:

During the weightlifting session, one of the men working out encourages his friend: “great, man; push a bit harder, boom! [Shouting] concentrate on exhaling hard, grunt [commanding his friend, while the latter is straining]. Man, don't be a pussy, you can do more, [raising his voice authoritatively] give me one more!” Finishing the set, his friend gets up, high-fives him still breathing heavily, saying “I told you, this is the first time I heard you exhaling, it should come to you naturally, you must let your body explode during the set.”

As opposed to male gym goers, women are not encouraged to grunt or to exhale loudly, either by trainers or by their peers. During the researcher's observations in the field he never heard a woman being encouraged to grunt by a trainer or gym goer, male or female. This is not to say that females do not lift weights or do not push themselves to the limit, but they seem to internalize the social expectation of women to be quiet during physical exertion. The techniques and range of motion that are taught are the same as those given to men, but, as one of the trainers explained to a novice gym goer, females should “exhale slowly and focus on breathing moderately.” This instruction is relevant for both female beginners and more advanced ones as well. Nevertheless, breaching the codes of gender can take place but entails serious ramifications, as shown in the following example:

On one occasion, a young woman with short hair was exercising on one of the strength training machines. Whenever she lifted herself up using the equipment, she let out a grunt. A male trainee commented to the researcher with apparent disgust: “Tell me, is this a woman or a man?” When asked why he was asking that, he looked at the researcher, shocked, and said, “What is this? Look at the sounds she makes, I think it is a man … the hairstyle too … creepy.”

In another case, while running on the treadmill at the gym, the first researcher spoke with a gym instructor. The latter told him that a few days earlier one of the male trainees complained to gym management about a female trainee who was grunting loudly while working out in the free weight space. When asked if the woman stopped grunting following the complaint, the instructor replied: “She didn't give a shit about the complaint and continued to focus on her workout.” During the next couple of months, the researcher noticed that the woman increased her workout intensity. The weights she used were heavier and the grunting, performed at the “heart” of the free weights zone became louder. Responding to the researcher's question if she felt uncomfortable being critiqued by men, the woman said, “I don't understand, why it is such a big deal? Every second you hear a guy grunting, but when it comes from a woman it turns weird.”

Moreover, a few female exercisers explained that they try to avoid “making noises” during their workout in the gym because they believed it might be perceived as sexually provocative. Both females and males seem to associate females’ grunting with sex. This understanding emerges, for instance, from Zoe's confession:

Twenty-five years old, an experienced gym goer, Zoe explained:

I would be uncomfortable making physical exertion noises during my workout because I would be worried that the males around me would hear my noises and think of me sexually. I don't want them to think about how I sound during sex.

Adam, 29 years old, an experienced gym goer said:

I know it is not politically correct to say, but when guys grunt, it grants them a certain amount of respect and glorification. That's not the case with women. I must admit that when I hear a woman grunt in the gym I automatically think of sex (laughing). Let me tell you something, my girlfriend and I used to watch Maria Sharapova, [a former professional tennis player] grunting on the tennis court, and we both fantasized about sex.

These examples demonstrate the different attitude in the gym in relation to men grunting and to women grunting. The first are encouraged for their masculine, powerful vocal conduct while the latter are criticized, even ridiculed, for behaving “like men.” Thus, grunting is a male privilege and serves as their masculinity's measurement while it is socially prohibited and a failure of femininity for females.

The descriptions above also highlight that the grunt is perceived among some male gym goers as natural, as if it is part of their DNA (“every organism acts in this way in times of physical exertion”). Consequently, as grunting is not perceived by those male exercisers as a voluntary performance, rather as a self-evident “natural” expression, they can waive away any responsibility. If grunting is involuntary, it is not acquired through a socializing process. This assumption contradicts Becker’s(1953) analysis of learning to derive pleasure from smoking marihuana. He argues that it is not a predispositioned physiological sensation; rather, pleasure is acquired through a complex social process. The right “high” bodily sensation “might be expected [as] a result of the individual's participation in groups” (p. 237). Similarly, it is suggested that beginners’ social encounters with trainers and/or veteran gym goers facilitates their acquaintance with grunting performance. This process entails exercising proper techniques, while having social interactions with their peers. Given the gym goers’ experiences as liminoid (Turner, 1982), the socialization process accelerates their integration and constitutes an essential component in their becoming skilled gym goers.

de Beauvoir (1956) argues that the woman is fundamentally viewed by the male as “determined and differentiated in relation to man, while he is not in relation to her; she is the inessential in front of the essential. He is the Subject; he is the Absolute. She is the ‘Other’” (pp. 15–16). Following this view, we suggest that the crude use of “pussy” as the extreme opposite of “man” (described in the above examples), demonstrates the gender power relations in the gyms, where a macho, chauvinist environment is constructed, based on the profound contrast perceived between masculinity and femininity. Among female exercisers grunting appears to be perceived as a social deviation. Accordingly, Brace-Govan (2004) reports that “Social controls occurred … and were particularly intense where women were recognized as physically powerful” (p. 526). Hence, it seems that women's physical strength is unacceptable and even threatens the macho social surrounding. Moreover, whereas grunting among men signifies strength and dominance, women's grunting is likened to a disrespectful sexual image. Challenging gender dictates and undermining the dichotomized differentiation between types of activity that are “allowed” according to gender enhances the growing threat to masculine physical superiority (Hertzog and Lev, 2019).

“Grunting”- controlling the space

Gender boundaries in gyms are not absolute and can be undermined. They are dynamic and depend on various features, such as geographic region, the kind of management, and the gym's size. The main difference between males and females in the gym is connected to the proportion of gender participation in the various activities: most women are engaged in aerobic activity and most men in muscle work.

Grunting plays an intriguing role in conveying males’ control over space. Borrowing from Löw (2008) argument that the “power of spaces as atmospheres” can “provoke moods in people, in extreme cases even against their will” (p. 46) and following Hertzog and Lev (2019) who revealed that grunting among males can be used to maintain males’ control over space, it is suggested that the grunt can also overpower males. Thus, grunting can disempower both females and males in some spaces in the gym. However, it was found that grunting can also bring together male exercisers, contributing to their brotherhood and indirectly reaffirming males’ control over the space.

In some cases, grunting loudly is perceived as an unpleasant phenomenon among gym goers. Both males and females have asserted that they feel uncomfortable being near grunting male exercisers. They stressed their negative experience and vulnerability. Dana, 24 years old, an experienced gym goer said:

I can't stand it, really. Sometimes I find myself checking before I go to the weight room to see if it's quiet enough. The problem is not only with the grunting but also with the fact that most grunters throw the dumbbells on the floor after they finish a set. Once a dumbbell was thrown and landed 2 inches from my foot. A guy told me after I pointed out that the grunting is too loud: “sorry, but I can't help it, if you have a problem go to work out in a different place.”

In a similar vein, Naomi, 41 years old, a novice gym goer said:

I try to keep away from people like this [grunters]. I understand that it's part of the workout but it's stressful. I can't really concentrate on my workout. Also you can't say anything to them, they act as if the gym is their private business.

Men can also feel uncomfortable by the grunts. Erving, 49 years old, an experienced gym goer reported:

Sometimes I spend more time on the treadmill if I identify someone that heavily grunts. It really sucks. I remember a few times I had to approach one of the grunters, asking him to stop doing that. I can be a very unpleasant person in those situations.

Martin, a 26-year-old, male, ex-gym goer confessed:

I hate the gym, I have bad memories there. One of the things that drove me crazy was those grunters who used to yell so much when lifting. It's like they want everyone to hear them and to see how much they lift and how jacked they are. I couldn't stand those guys.

Grunting, so it emerges, is profoundly despised and irritating. It generates an intimidating atmosphere in the gym. Yet, it should be added that grunting can also encourage males’ social closeness through a “joint action” (Blumer, 1986), facilitating solidarity among male exercisers in the gym. This observation finds support in the claim by Brace-Govan (2004) that “strength training is … a site of collective experience and enforced norms of affective behavior” (p. 503).

On various occasions, weightlifters who grunted loudly were asked by other exercisers questions such as how much they are lifting and what their workout programs are. Such encounters enhanced verbal interactions among male exercisers, relating to their workouts and encouraging their cooperation in coordinating their weightlifting sessions. Sometimes, these exchanges led to sharing weightlifting experiences such as comparing weight records and personal achievements. Often, another man joins in, and the small group becomes noisier and more conspicuous in the gym's space. In such cases, a sense of community and control over the free weight space seems to evolve. The following encounter demonstrates the above:

At the gym in Tel Aviv, a male gym goer was working out in the free weight zone while grunting heavily. Another male gym goer approached, saying: “I can hear that you are working hard, I’m curious, how much exactly do you lift?” This led to the sharing of each other's tips and achievements regarding their performances with lifting weights. After a few minutes they both shared the same bench press machine, grunting in turns. A few minutes later, a third male gym goer joined. At this point the interaction among them became much louder, and also involved jokes and nutrition tips. Before joining, the third exerciser was neither grunting nor exhaling heavily; nevertheless, after interacting with the other two he started to increase the lifted weight and to exhale loudly.

Douglas (1970) argues that “the physical body is a microcosm of society, facing the centre of power, contracting and expanding its claims in direct accordance with the increase and relaxation of social pressure” (p. 80). In this context grunting, and to a large extent throwing dumbbells after working out, symbolize the connection of the physical body and the social system. In other words, grunting in the gym symbolizes the freedom of the body that takes place within a social territory where social supervision is assumed to be loose. In this context, females and males might feel as “outsiders” if they do not accommodate the grunts as well as the risk of being injured by dumbbells. Moreover, the “joint action” associated with grunting enables the “grunters” to fit their action together, “by identifying the social act in which they are about to engage and, second, by interpreting and defining each other's acts in forming the joint act” (Blumer, 1986: 70). The weightlifters’ solidarity in relating to grunting may generate a “performance team” (Goffman, 1959). Following Goffman's claim that “a teammate is someone whose dramaturgical co-operation one is dependent upon in fostering a given definition of the situation” (Goffman, 1959: 83), it is suggested that a grunters’ team can evolve when the members’ performance is in line with the group participants’ expectations and with the “definition of the situation.”

Adjusting the grunting

Whereas the previous themes emphasized the socializing process involved in adopting grunting performance and its implication of controlling the space, the current theme focuses on the grunt's tendency to appear/disappear according to the social situation. Moving in and out of various social encounters can be explained by what Becker (1964) calls “situational adjustment.” This behavior enables the person to adjust herself/himself to the changing situations. The following examples highlight the way male gym goers adjust their grunting in the gym to the situation.

In one case, while working out in a gym in the north of Tel Aviv, the first researcher paid attention to a male exerciser, Steve, and his trainer. Steve grunted vociferously with each workout set, to the point that the researcher and other exercisers felt disturbed and complained about it to his trainer. The trainer responded, saying “sorry, man, he just can't control it.” However, the grunting stopped when Frank, an exerciser known as a prominent figure in the Israeli criminal world, approached the grunter's trainer, commenting in a friendly manner about the loud grunting. Steve apologized reluctantly. Following this event Frank's presence in the gym prevented Steve's grunting; however, when Frank was not around, the grunting continued unabashed. It should be added that Steve's performance at the gym, in both scenarios was similar, whether or not he was grunting.

Another example, demonstrating the significant impact of the relevant conditions on grunting performance was observed in a gym in the center of Tel Aviv. A male exerciser was observed breathing heavily, grunting, and talking loudly with his workout partner during his workout. Another man with a much stronger, bodybuilder physique entered the place. Upon his arrival, the former exerciser sized him up, evaluating his strong build. For the remainder of his session, the “weaker” exerciser decreased his grunting significantly, and spoke more quietly with his workout partner, probably in deference to the close presence of the stronger man.

Both examples demonstrate that the grunting performance does not occur in a social vacuum but rather takes place depending on the specific context. Being intimidated by Frank's presence, in the first example, Steve adjusted himself to the situation, and stopped grunting. His trainer's comment (“sorry, man, he just can’t control it”) did not align with Steve's behavior when the definition of the situation changed. The second example also shows that grunting can be self-controlled, depending on the situation. In this case the grunt's intensity was decreased following the entrance of a more “built” looking exerciser to the gym.

Another example is the changing pattern of an exerciser's behavior, observed by the first researcher in his visits in two different gyms. Alan, a 35-year-old gym goer, well known to the researcher, had recently changed gyms. While Alan used to grunt forcefully, dropping heavy weights loudly onto the floor after each set in his “older” gym, he ceased to grunt when he joined a new gym, and laid the dumbbells down carefully on the floor after each use. The weight of the dumbbells was the same, and his workout remained unaltered; yet, Alan's demeanor in the “new” gym had changed dramatically.

Thus, it appears that Alan adjusted his behavior to the current situation, from feeling in control, being an “insider” in the “old” gym, he became an “outsider” in an unfamiliar gym. Whereas the old gym signified a territory where he could feel free to grunt and to drop the dumbbells carelessly, in the “new” gym, both the grunting and the way he handled the dumbbells had drastically changed. This example demonstrates the voluntary component of grunting as being carefully calculated according to the place and situation. It also highlights the way “objects” are “being created, affirmed, transformed, and cast aside among different groups” (Blumer, 1986: 12).

As previously emphasized, grunting in the gym is much more observed among men; women are not encouraged by their trainers or peers to grunt or to exhale loudly; rather, they are expected to exhale moderately. However, in the following example a woman was observed grunting during her workout in the weight room as well as adjusting her grunting to the situation.

While working out at the gym in central Tel Aviv, Sarah, a trainer, was grunting vehemently while lifting heavy weights. At times in her resistance workout, Sarah used additional weights (dumbbells, barbells), and at other times she completed the exercises involving only body weight (pushups). Throughout both types of exercises, she pushed herself to the limit. However, while using the relatively heavy, additional weights, she grunted more loudly than others in the gym; moreover, after finishing each set, she threw the weights to the floor, like the men described in the previous examples. In contrast, while using only her body weight, she exercised silently. This was also the case with exercises that were within her limit, adjusted to relatively lighter weight, and more “fitting” to any other “regular” female exerciser.

Using additional sources of heavy weight, Sarah grunted, expecting other exercisers to watch her and be aware of how much weight she was lifting. Conversely, using only body weight, Sarah's grunting disappeared. Being observed when lifting heavy weights by other exercisers her strength could be recognized. By grunting openly among men, Sarah can be understood, as “confronting gender dictates openly, questioning the separation between types of activity that are ‘allowed’ according to gender” (Lev and Hertzog, 2017: 1). Thus, showing off her physical strength, throwing the dumbbells after each set and grunting loudly, Sarah contributes, inadvertently, to sustaining the macho culture at the gym and to propagating the gender-binary power structure. At the same time, Sarah's performance challenges males’ monopoly over males’ patterns of exhibiting control over space.

The four examples described above imply that even when grunting seems an inherent, natural conduct of the gym goer, it is not necessarily connected to his/her physiology. Rather, it is socially constructed, negotiated, controlled, and adjusted according to the situation.

Concluding thoughts

Drawing on a symbolic interaction approach, this study strived to reveal the manner in which grunting in gyms is socially mediated through a process of socialization and within a social context, rather than a self-evident, natural phenomenon. The study focused on grunting as a rational and voluntary action that requires learning to execute “appropriately” when the “right” moment comes. Following Blumer (1986), grunts, performed by exercisers in gyms, depend on the meaning attached to them. Thus, the grunt in the gym is perceived as emerging from social interactions, modified through the exercisers’ interpretative processes. The descriptions above indicate that grunting requires instruction and encouragement. In this reality, trainers in the gym perform as agents of socialization, which shapes the beginner exercisers’ values, norms, and behaviors. Moreover, they serve to teach and model expected behavior and to transmit social patterns and beliefs. In this way, the new “grunters” learn to manage their impressions convincingly, in line with social standards and expectations as part of the front region of behavior. Similarly, learning “appropriate” grunting and bodily sensations in time of physical exertion relies on a socializing process, conveyed by the exerciser's peer group. This is in keeping with Becker (1953), who argued that behavior will vary based on an individual's situation within a social group. In this regard, while learning to grunt through the process of peer socialization increases solidarity among male exercisers, women are excluded. In other words, grunting, talking loudly, and throwing dumbbells on the floor can convey a sense of a “grunting community” for males. Following Miller’s (2010) theory of material culture, it is argued that the taken for granted material objects within the gym which are geared toward experienced, male gym goers (e.g. heavy weights), help grant the grunt its power. Further, as masculine men are generally expected to grunt, women are expected to exhale “appropriately.” Women's grunting is perceived as almost taboo and as breaching norms in the gym. While women's grunting is associated with sexual images, or as breaking gender norms, men's grunting signifies strength and dominance. In the studied context, grunting denotes a symbolic and physical differentiation between the genders, entailing gender power gaps, while constituting an efficient instrument of males’ domination of the gym's space. These findings echo a study by Young(2005) suggesting that female exercisers feel restricted to their “allowed” movement in the gym space, while men feel free to utilize the space without limitations. Moreover, moving between different social situations during the course of a workout requires gym goers to engage in a process of “situational adjustment” (Becke, 1964). They need to adjust their behavior to changing situations to turn themselves “into the kind of person the situation demands” (p. 44). In this way, the gym goer is able, as Goffman (1959) pointed out, to “control the conduct of the others, especially their responsive treatment of him” (p. 3). Grunting, so it was demonstrated, is a voluntary action that must be negotiated and carefully calculated according to the specific social situation in which the person is involved.

The findings contribute to the knowledge of the sociology of gym spaces and culture by deconstructing grunting in situations of physical exertion. The findings indicate that the grunt is an active repository of social and political meaning, comprised of norms, sanctions, and gender inequality. Therefore, the implications of the study should result in a newfound understanding and awareness not only by gym management, but also trainers and gym goers. The underlying meanings of grunting and the social ramifications of the encouragement and teaching of such performances, which perpetuate stereotypes and gender discrimination, ought to be questioned and reconsidered.

The article is based on an ethnographic study that took place in two gyms, one in the north and one in the center of Tel Aviv. As gym goers’ experiences in different geographic and socio-economic sites can be different from those in the studied gyms, the analysis offered in this article is limited. A further study on grunting in gyms as a social phenomenon should relate to divergent backgrounds that examine different geographic sites, and social milieus (e.g. religious groups and rural regions). The authors assume that the reported and analyzed findings can be useful to better understand the complexity of grunting in occasions of physical exertion of athletes in different sports fields.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

We wish to thank the reviewers for their helpful comments on an earlier draft. We also wish to thank all the gym goers who gave their time in participating in the study.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declare no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Assaf Lev

Author Biographies

Dr. Assaf Lev is a social anthropologist and the Head of Research at the Department of Sports Therapy, Ono Academic College, Israel. As a former professional basketball player, current sports therapist, and a veteran distance runner, his research interests focus on embodied experiences of pain, exercise and physical activity, gender and aging.

Prof. Esther Hertzog is a social anthropologist, teaching at Zefat Academic College. Her main spheres of research are bureaucracy and gender (in the contexts of immigration, welfare, development, education, politics and the Holocaust). Hertzog is also a social and a feminist activist.

References

Andreasson

Johansson

(2014) The Global Gym: Gender, Health and Pedagogies. Hampshire, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.

Awruk

Janowski

(2016) Motivation for physical activity and mental health indicators in male gym attendees. Physical Culture and Sport Studies and Research 69(1): 65–73.

Becker

(1964) Personal change in adult life. Sociometry 27: 40–53.

Birt

Scott

Cavers

, et al. (2016) Member checking: A tool to enhance trustworthiness or merely a nod to validation? Qualitative Health Research 26(13): 1802–1811.

Blumer

(1986) Symbolic Interactionism: Perspective and Method. University of California Press.

Bourke

(2014) The Story of Pain: From Prayer to Painkillers. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Brace-Govan

(2004) Weighty matters: Control of women’s access to physical strength. The Sociological Review 52(4): 503–531.

Braun

Clarke

Weate

(2016) Using thematic analysis in sport and exercise research. In: Smith

Sparkes

(eds) Routledge Handbook of Qualitative Research in Sport and Exercise. London: Routledge, 191–205.

Callison

Berg

Slivka

(2014) Grunting in tennis increases ball velocity but not oxygen cost. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research 28(7): 1915–1919.

10.

Chernozub

Danylchenko

Imas

, et al. (2019) Peculiarities of correcting load parameters in power training of mixed martial arts athletes. Journal of Physical Education and Sport 19: 481–488.

11.

Coen

Davidson

Rosenberg

(2020) “Where is the space for continuum?” Gyms and the visceral “stickiness” of binary gender. Qualitative Research in Sport, Exercise and Health 1–17, DOI: 10.1080/2159676X.2020.1748897

12.

Coen

Rosenberg

Davidson

(2018) It’s gym, like gym not Jim: Exploring the role of place in the gendering of physical activity. Social Science & Medicine 196: 29–36.

13.

Craig

Liberti

(2007) “Cause that’s what girls do”: The making of a feminized gym. Gender & Society 21(5): 676–699.

14.

Creswell

(2009) Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

15.

Crossley

(2006) In the gym: Motives, meanings and moral careers. Body and Society 12: 23–50.

16.

de Beauvoir

(1956) The Second Sex. London: Lowe and Brydone.

17.

Douglas

(1970) Natural Symbols. Routledge.

18.

Dumitriu

(2014) The social dramaturgy of sport: Towards an integrative Goffmanian model. Revista Romana de Sociologie 25(5/6): 493.

19.

Goffman

(1959) The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. Harmondsworth: Penguin.

20.

Hertzog

Lev

(2019) Male dominance under threat: Machoism confronts female defiance in Israeli gyms. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography 48(6): 836–866. DOI: 10.1177/0891241619834662.

21.

Hesse-Biber

Leavy

(2006) The Practice of Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

22.

Johansson

(1996) Gendered spaces: The gym culture and the construction of gender. Young, Nordic Journal of Youth Research 4(3): 32–47.

23.

Lev

(2019) Becoming a long-distance runner – deriving pleasure and contentment in times of pain and bodily distress. Leisure Studies 38(6): 790–803. DOI: 10.1080/02614367.2019.1640776.

24.

Lev

(2020) Distance runners in a dys-appearance state – reconceptualizing the perception of pain and suffering in times of bodily distress. Qualitative Research in Sport, Exercise and Health 3(3): 473–487. DOI: 10.1080/2159676X.2020.1734647.

25.

Lev

Hertzog

(2017) Typology of gender resistance and defiance in Israeli gyms. Sport in Society 20(11): 1699–1714. DOI: 10.1080/17430437.2017.1310203.

26.

Lev

Weinish (2020) Lost in transition: Analyzing the lifecycle of Israeli football stars in becoming coaches. Israel Affairs 26(4): 555–572. DOI: 10.1080/13537121.2020.1775940.

27.

Löw

(2020) The constitution of space, the structuration of spaces through the simultaneity of effect and perception. European Journal of Social Theory 11(1): 25–49.

28.

McNarry

Allen-Collinson

Evans

(2020) “You always wanna be sore, because then you are seeing results”: Exploring positive pain in competitive swimming. Sociology of Sport Journal 37(4): 301–309. DOI:

10.1123/ssj.2019–0133.

29.

Mead

(1934) Mind, Self and Society (Vol. 111). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

30.

Miller

(2010) Stuff. Cambridge: Polity.

31.

O’Connell

Brewer J

Man T

, et al. (2016) The effects of forced exhalation and inhalation, grunting, and Valsalva maneuver on forehand force in collegiate tennis players. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research 30(2): 430–437.

32.

Richards

(2009) Handling Qualitative Data: A Practical Guide. 2nd edn. London: SAGE.

33.

Richardson

(2008) Flex-rated! Female bodybuilding: Feminist resistance or erotic spectacle? Journal of Gender Studies 17(4): 289–301.

34.

Roderick

Allen-Collinson

(2020) “I just want to be left alone”: Novel sociological insights into dramaturgical demands on professional athletes. Sociology of Sport Journal 37(2): 108–116. DOI:

10.1123/ssj.2019-0135.

35.

Salvatore

Marecek

(2010) Gender in the gym: Evaluation concerns as barriers to women’s weight lifting. Sex Roles 63(7–8): 556–567.

36.

Sassatelli

(1999) Interaction order and beyond: A field analysis of body culture within fitness gyms. Body & Society 5(2–3): 227–248.

37.

Shilling

Bunsell

(2009) The female bodybuilder as a gender outlaw. Qualitative Research in Sport and Exercise 1(2): 141–159.

38.

Sinnett

Maglinti

Kingstone

(2018) Grunting’s competitive advantage: Considerations of force and distraction. PloS One 13(2): e0192939.

39.

Sparkes

Smith

(2013) Qualitative Research Methods in Sport, Exercise and Health: From Process to Product . London: Routledge.

40.

Stewart

Smith

Moroney

(2013) Capital building through gym work. Leisure studies 32(5): 542–560.

41.

Tulle

Dorrer

(2012) Back from the brink: Ageing, exercise and health in a small gym. Ageing and Society 32(7): 1106–1127.

42.

Turner

(1982) From Ritual to Theatre: The Human Seriousness of Play . Cambridge, MA: Paj Publications.

43.

Young

(2005) On Female Body Experience: “Throwing Like a Girl” and Other Essays. Oxford University Press.