CrossFit.com recently posted a video it called "Unfettered Capitalism." The video is powerful. It opens with the quote, "The unfettered have a deep appreciation of being unfettered, even if they are unable to express it."
CrossFit founder Greg Glassman professes to be a libertarian by birth. He mentions in the video that when he has his 'lefty friends' read libertarian publications they come back without objections. His befuddlement at those friends' failure to adopt a more fully libertarian worldview as a result is clear.
I do not consider myself to be consistently 'on the left' in political matters. But I do have a couple objections to his self-characterization.
I hadn't given the video too much thought since I first saw it, but I noticed an event posting for April 17, 2013 that spurred the initial impressions I had at first sight. (Glassman's event in Seattle looked awesome, by the way. Anyone who went, the comment section is open, please let me know how it was).
Before the objections, there's plenty to like in the video. In fact, even my objections aren't really criticisms of Glassman or CrossFit. Quite the contrary. In fact, I think Glassmans practice is better than his rhetoric.
Glassman is a contrarian. It's a big part of what makes him, and his training program, great. He looked at the fitness world and described what he saw as 'a bizarro world'. He saw it clearly. And started a program that was comprehensively better. CrossFit has revolutionized fitness. Not just the industry--the way fitness is done--but also the idea of fitness. Talking, even thinking, about fitness is different than it was before Glassman.
He's right when he says, "The [CrossFit] culture is crazy important." He's still right when he argues, "It's the thing we safeguard; it's what he do at HQ."
When Glassman talks about capitalism, though, it sounds a little like 'bizzaro' capitalism to me. I completely agree with the sentiment that informs his quote, "The unfettered have a deep appreciation of being unfettered, even if they are unable to express it." And I love his practice. What Glassman has done with the freedom he has been afforded is wonderful. It's spectacular. (Literally...the CrossFit Games draws millions of viewers!) But I'm not sure what he's done is the necessary, or even typical, outcome of 'unfettered capitalism'. Quite the contrary, in fact.
Political theorist Richard Flathman, I think, offers a better description of what Glassman is up to, and a stronger theoretical defense of ideas similar to those Glassman espouses. Flathman persuasively argues in favor of what he calls the 'liberal principle'. (Don't get your hackles up over the word liberal--he certainly doesn't mean it in a 'democrat' vs 'republican' way. It's about freedom, mostly negatively defined--about being 'unfettered' to use Glassmans terminology). The liberal principle states that "it is a prima facie good for persons to form, to act on, and to satisfy and achieve desires and interestes, objectives and purposes."
Flathman calls for a general presumption in favor of freedom--meaning when we assess what people should and should not be allowed to do, our default position should always be in favor of letting them do it. And any restriction on human action needs to pass a rigorous bar.
Flathman thinks that the highest ideal available to us is individuality "understood as self-making or self-enacting." And that the pursuit of this ideal requires "abundant social and political plurality and, essential to both, the widest possible freedom of action." His devotion to individual freedom is so extensive, those passages come from a book called Reflections of a Would-Be Anarchist.
Flathman despises the coercive power of the modern state. But he is no libertarian. Though he doesn't like it, Flathman does allow that institutions are necessary and desirable. The most important question that can be asked about institutions, Flathman thinks, is whether they "whether or in what ways...[institutions] contribute to or obstruct attempts to pursue and...realize...the ideals of self-making, self-overcoming, and self-enactment."
Instead of libertarianism (Adam Smith's famous laissez-faire is better interpreted as 'leave well enough alone' not 'leave everything alone, by the way.) Flathman posits a 'willful liberalism'. With Glassman, he thinks that for any society to work well, "there must be a substantial number of associates (people) who for the most part 'take care of themselves,' who do not need to be 'cared for' by others or by society. And there must be associates who, by cultivating virtuosities such as civility and especially magnanimity, care for others in the sense of not inflicting themselves harmfully or destructively on the latter."
This is better than libertarianism. A lot better. Libertarianism is often (sometimes rightly) subject to the charge of articulating a politics of selfishness. Flathman rejects much of libertarianism on the grounds that the economic character of much of the thought is dreary and dispiriting. He favors concentrating on the making of lives rather than on the making of livings.
But Glassman's practice is certainly not subject to these critiques. His belief that businesses must "Be Better Period" certainly does well in a capitalist system. (By the way, was #BeBetterPeriod trending on twitter, or was it just my feed?) And so does his practice of offering health & wealth for others. But it's hardly a practice exclusive to capitalism. Or even, unfortunately, a regular characteristic of it.
So, Glassman is interested in freedom. Even more than he perhaps is aware. Or at least more than his words would suggest. Flathman sometimes calls his thought 'virtuosity' liberalism. As the name implies, it centers on making people good at stuff.
Flathman hates the idea of government getting involved anywhere it doesn't have to. He's only a would-be anarchist, though--sometimes government works in ways that allow for more individual freedom and not less. As Michael Oakeshott put it, "Politics is the art not of imposing a way of life, but of organising a common life… the art of accommodating moralities to one another." It's what we do in the space afforded to us that our institutions and institutionalisms make possible that allows us to be better.
Frederick Nietzsche famously thought of himself as the argonaut not the evangelist of free-spiritedness. In that, he is quite like coach Glassman. Or even CEO Glassman, who embodies the best in what we can follow Flathman in calling 'virtuosity liberalism'. We can be inspired by that, even if we can see through his claim that he's a libertarian by birth.
Glassman personifies Michael Oakeshott's belief that societies are led from behind and for those capable of leadership to give themselves up to political activity is to break away from their genius. Greg Glassman is a genius. And his leadership doesn't betray us. No matter what he says.
CrossFit founder Greg Glassman professes to be a libertarian by birth. He mentions in the video that when he has his 'lefty friends' read libertarian publications they come back without objections. His befuddlement at those friends' failure to adopt a more fully libertarian worldview as a result is clear.
I do not consider myself to be consistently 'on the left' in political matters. But I do have a couple objections to his self-characterization.
I hadn't given the video too much thought since I first saw it, but I noticed an event posting for April 17, 2013 that spurred the initial impressions I had at first sight. (Glassman's event in Seattle looked awesome, by the way. Anyone who went, the comment section is open, please let me know how it was).
 |
| Greg Glassman at the Freedom Foundation |
Before the objections, there's plenty to like in the video. In fact, even my objections aren't really criticisms of Glassman or CrossFit. Quite the contrary. In fact, I think Glassmans practice is better than his rhetoric.
Glassman is a contrarian. It's a big part of what makes him, and his training program, great. He looked at the fitness world and described what he saw as 'a bizarro world'. He saw it clearly. And started a program that was comprehensively better. CrossFit has revolutionized fitness. Not just the industry--the way fitness is done--but also the idea of fitness. Talking, even thinking, about fitness is different than it was before Glassman.
He's right when he says, "The [CrossFit] culture is crazy important." He's still right when he argues, "It's the thing we safeguard; it's what he do at HQ."
When Glassman talks about capitalism, though, it sounds a little like 'bizzaro' capitalism to me. I completely agree with the sentiment that informs his quote, "The unfettered have a deep appreciation of being unfettered, even if they are unable to express it." And I love his practice. What Glassman has done with the freedom he has been afforded is wonderful. It's spectacular. (Literally...the CrossFit Games draws millions of viewers!) But I'm not sure what he's done is the necessary, or even typical, outcome of 'unfettered capitalism'. Quite the contrary, in fact.
Political theorist Richard Flathman, I think, offers a better description of what Glassman is up to, and a stronger theoretical defense of ideas similar to those Glassman espouses. Flathman persuasively argues in favor of what he calls the 'liberal principle'. (Don't get your hackles up over the word liberal--he certainly doesn't mean it in a 'democrat' vs 'republican' way. It's about freedom, mostly negatively defined--about being 'unfettered' to use Glassmans terminology). The liberal principle states that "it is a prima facie good for persons to form, to act on, and to satisfy and achieve desires and interestes, objectives and purposes."
Flathman calls for a general presumption in favor of freedom--meaning when we assess what people should and should not be allowed to do, our default position should always be in favor of letting them do it. And any restriction on human action needs to pass a rigorous bar.
Flathman thinks that the highest ideal available to us is individuality "understood as self-making or self-enacting." And that the pursuit of this ideal requires "abundant social and political plurality and, essential to both, the widest possible freedom of action." His devotion to individual freedom is so extensive, those passages come from a book called Reflections of a Would-Be Anarchist.
Flathman despises the coercive power of the modern state. But he is no libertarian. Though he doesn't like it, Flathman does allow that institutions are necessary and desirable. The most important question that can be asked about institutions, Flathman thinks, is whether they "whether or in what ways...[institutions] contribute to or obstruct attempts to pursue and...realize...the ideals of self-making, self-overcoming, and self-enactment."
Instead of libertarianism (Adam Smith's famous laissez-faire is better interpreted as 'leave well enough alone' not 'leave everything alone, by the way.) Flathman posits a 'willful liberalism'. With Glassman, he thinks that for any society to work well, "there must be a substantial number of associates (people) who for the most part 'take care of themselves,' who do not need to be 'cared for' by others or by society. And there must be associates who, by cultivating virtuosities such as civility and especially magnanimity, care for others in the sense of not inflicting themselves harmfully or destructively on the latter."
This is better than libertarianism. A lot better. Libertarianism is often (sometimes rightly) subject to the charge of articulating a politics of selfishness. Flathman rejects much of libertarianism on the grounds that the economic character of much of the thought is dreary and dispiriting. He favors concentrating on the making of lives rather than on the making of livings.
But Glassman's practice is certainly not subject to these critiques. His belief that businesses must "Be Better Period" certainly does well in a capitalist system. (By the way, was #BeBetterPeriod trending on twitter, or was it just my feed?) And so does his practice of offering health & wealth for others. But it's hardly a practice exclusive to capitalism. Or even, unfortunately, a regular characteristic of it.
So, Glassman is interested in freedom. Even more than he perhaps is aware. Or at least more than his words would suggest. Flathman sometimes calls his thought 'virtuosity' liberalism. As the name implies, it centers on making people good at stuff.
Flathman hates the idea of government getting involved anywhere it doesn't have to. He's only a would-be anarchist, though--sometimes government works in ways that allow for more individual freedom and not less. As Michael Oakeshott put it, "Politics is the art not of imposing a way of life, but of organising a common life… the art of accommodating moralities to one another." It's what we do in the space afforded to us that our institutions and institutionalisms make possible that allows us to be better.
Frederick Nietzsche famously thought of himself as the argonaut not the evangelist of free-spiritedness. In that, he is quite like coach Glassman. Or even CEO Glassman, who embodies the best in what we can follow Flathman in calling 'virtuosity liberalism'. We can be inspired by that, even if we can see through his claim that he's a libertarian by birth.
 |
| Contrary to popular belief, Frederick Nietzsche did not popularize the term 'YOLO' |
Glassman personifies Michael Oakeshott's belief that societies are led from behind and for those capable of leadership to give themselves up to political activity is to break away from their genius. Greg Glassman is a genius. And his leadership doesn't betray us. No matter what he says.
No comments:
Post a Comment