Civilized Muscles: Building a Powerful Body as a Vehicle for Social Status and Identity Formation

Reviewers comment

Author’s response

Comments numbered

Reviewer 2

1

This shows potential. You have some great ideas and I like the premise but I don't think you have convinced me as well as you could

Thanks you. I have restructured the introduction to make it clearer where the paper, the results and thinking comes from. Line 55-67

2

Methods need expanding - why only 5 participants? What was your research question? How did you recruit participants?

Now expanded. Line 68-85.

3

Findings seem a bit thin and out of proportion with the literature. It seems that most of the paper is background and discussion and that the findings lack a bit of substance – can you go deeper into your findings?

I believe I am familiar with the literature in this field. The aim of the article is to look into an area that has not had much attention. The aim, purpose and intention of the paper is now made clearer in line 55-67.  The article is not to be considered an interview study and therefore the aim is not to go deep into the empirical findings (I do that elsewhere (Christiansen, forthcoming (2020))), but rather to investigate one element in the appeal of the muscular body, that hitherto has not been given much attention in the academic literature.

4

While an evolutionary perspective is interesting I am not sure that you have demonstrated the best fit with your findings.

I am not quite sure what to do with this comment. Not examples are provided to illustrate where the findings do not fit with what I say about evolutionary psychology. Perhaps the amended introduction makes my use of the interview quotes clearer.

5

I am not sure that you have done a comprehensive review of the literature in this area before writing - what about the other papers that look at muscle from an evolutionary perspective? Does the 'crisis in masculinity' theory explain what you are finding?

I do know the literature quite well. I am aware about a number of studies that do look into this, but they have a different take. Should I introduce the article with a comprehensive literature review, it would either be a very long or completely different article.

6

You have used secondary sources and Wikipedia - this is not acceptable at this level. Go to the original sources.

This is an odd comment. I get the suspicion that the reviewer only saw that there was a wiki reference but did not check what it was a reference to. It is a reference to an advertisement that ran in comic books and magazines in the 1940s, 40s, 50s and into the 60s. It is an advertisement, so there is no original source to go to. The best source I could find is the Wikipedia reference. There are a number of podcasts and small documentaries available on YouTube. But it would not be fair to choose any one between them. So, while I have added a short explanation, I will stick to the Wikipedia reference.

7

Expression is a bit awkward and unclear in numerous places and there are numerous grammatical error (I have noted many of these below) and I suggest editing by someone with a better grasp of English so that these things don't cloud your ideas (which are essentially good).

A native English speaker has read and checked the paper.

8

Is page 1 lines 22-25 a quote?

No. An opening (thought-provoking) statement meant to set the scene for the article’s topic.

9

Page 1 line 37 has been (not have been)

Thanks. Amended.

10

Page 2 line 53 expression is awkward here (and in other places throughout the paper): or coming to look strong

Thanks. Amended. (“and why there is still an attraction in becoming strong and muscular”)

11

Line 65 – incomplete sentence: conducted 14 long, semi-structured interview with.

Thanks. Fixed

12

Lines 74-5 awkward expression: “on the one hand side and our ability to exert self-control and delay of gratification on the other”.

Amended

13

Page 2 note 4 should read “mutually dependent”

Thanks. Amended.

14

Line 108: ‘was’ not ‘were’

Thanks. Amended.

15

Line 125: Wikipedia! This is not an acceptable academic source

See comment 6

16

Line 130 – which studies?

Those mentioned in line 137 in the original and 179 and 184 in the revised

17

Line 155 typo in something

Thanks. Fixed.

18

Line 166 awkward expression

Fixed

19

Line 181 an extra ‘the’ before sociologist

Deleted

20

Line 184 are not

Fixed

21

Line 365 have knowledge

Fixed

22

Line 401 have not has

Fixed

23

Line 428 missing references at the end of the sentence?

Fixed – reference (Herbert 2015) moved.

Reviewer 1

24

Would like to see more set-up/introduction to the opening lines, "He who can beat..."

Hmm, I rather like it this way. It sets the scene for the article and attracts the reader’s attention. I have added an introduction in the next paragraph (line 55-67).

25

p.1 line 26- "It"-- what/who does "IT" refer to? This entire paragraph could be revamped to be clearer

“It” refers to the use of violence and the above description. However, I have rephrased the sentence to make it clearer.

26

p.2- line 46 Theory and Method: need additional references in first paragraph. Need to be more specific,line 51: "This" ? and line 53, "This is the case..."

More references are added.

The sentence reads: “evolution has equipped us with a psyche that is receptive to the signal the strong body transmits to its surroundings. This is why we treat stronger men with greater respect than weaker men”. I find it clear that “This” refers to the previous sentence and the psyche evolutions has equipped us with.

Similar with “This is the case” – which refers to the attraction of becoming strong. No amendments are made.

27

p.2- participant breakdown requires more information:  Are they Caucasian? Black? Heterosexual? Training for a specific sport

More info added line 68-85.

28

p.3- line 91 (and paragraph that follows) - requires referencing/citation

References added.

29

p.3 - line 111 and on requires referencing/citation

From line 109 (original manus), it is explicated that the following is from Stephen Pinker’s book The Better Angels of Our Nature – A History of Violence and Humanity. I have added the reference earlier on, line 154 in revised manus.

30

p. 4- line 125- could you cite the actual advertisement/Youtube link? vs. Wikipedia

See comment 6. Wikipedia is the best and most extensive reference here. I have added an explanation.

31

p. 4- line 130 "Studies across the world's ..." what studies, include references/citation

The studies are referenced in line 137 in the original (179 in the revised). I have added a few more references.

32

p.8 - discussion form participants on receiving extra attention from women. Assume all participants were heterosexual? There is fairly extensive literature on the culture of muscle building/gym going/bodybuilding and homoeroticism that may be relevant to your analysis.

This is an interesting suggestion. I am aware of this body of literature, but my assessment is that, introducing this would be outside the scope of the present article. I have now emphasised in the methods section that all interviewees identified as heterosexual.

33

34

35

36

37

Reviewers comment

Author’s response

Comments numbered

Reviewer 2

1

This shows potential. You have some great ideas and I like the premise but I don't think you have convinced me as well as you could

Thanks you. I have restructured the introduction to make it clearer where the paper, the results and thinking comes from. Line 55-67

2

Methods need expanding - why only 5 participants? What was your research question? How did you recruit participants?

Now expanded. Line 68-85.

3

Findings seem a bit thin and out of proportion with the literature. It seems that most of the paper is background and discussion and that the findings lack a bit of substance – can you go deeper into your findings?

I believe I am familiar with the literature in this field. The aim of the article is to look into an area that has not had much attention. The aim, purpose and intention of the paper is now made clearer in line 55-67.  The article is not to be considered an interview study and therefore the aim is not to go deep into the empirical findings (I do that elsewhere (Christiansen, forthcoming (2020))), but rather to investigate one element in the appeal of the muscular body, that hitherto has not been given much attention in the academic literature.

4

While an evolutionary perspective is interesting I am not sure that you have demonstrated the best fit with your findings.

I am not quite sure what to do with this comment. Not examples are provided to illustrate where the findings do not fit with what I say about evolutionary psychology. Perhaps the amended introduction makes my use of the interview quotes clearer.

5

I am not sure that you have done a comprehensive review of the literature in this area before writing - what about the other papers that look at muscle from an evolutionary perspective? Does the 'crisis in masculinity' theory explain what you are finding?

I do know the literature quite well. I am aware about a number of studies that do look into this, but they have a different take. Should I introduce the article with a comprehensive literature review, it would either be a very long or completely different article.

6

You have used secondary sources and Wikipedia - this is not acceptable at this level. Go to the original sources.

This is an odd comment. I get the suspicion that the reviewer only saw that there was a wiki reference but did not check what it was a reference to. It is a reference to an advertisement that ran in comic books and magazines in the 1940s, 40s, 50s and into the 60s. It is an advertisement, so there is no original source to go to. The best source I could find is the Wikipedia reference. There are a number of podcasts and small documentaries available on YouTube. But it would not be fair to choose any one between them. So, while I have added a short explanation, I will stick to the Wikipedia reference.

7

Expression is a bit awkward and unclear in numerous places and there are numerous grammatical error (I have noted many of these below) and I suggest editing by someone with a better grasp of English so that these things don't cloud your ideas (which are essentially good).

A native English speaker has read and checked the paper.

8

Is page 1 lines 22-25 a quote?

No. An opening (thought-provoking) statement meant to set the scene for the article’s topic.

9

Page 1 line 37 has been (not have been)

Thanks. Amended.

10

Page 2 line 53 expression is awkward here (and in other places throughout the paper): or coming to look strong

Thanks. Amended. (“and why there is still an attraction in becoming strong and muscular”)

11

Line 65 – incomplete sentence: conducted 14 long, semi-structured interview with.

Thanks. Fixed

12

Lines 74-5 awkward expression: “on the one hand side and our ability to exert self-control and delay of gratification on the other”.

Amended

13

Page 2 note 4 should read “mutually dependent”

Thanks. Amended.

14

Line 108: ‘was’ not ‘were’

Thanks. Amended.

15

Line 125: Wikipedia! This is not an acceptable academic source

See comment 6

16

Line 130 – which studies?

Those mentioned in line 137 in the original and 179 and 184 in the revised

17

Line 155 typo in something

Thanks. Fixed.

18

Line 166 awkward expression

Fixed

19

Line 181 an extra ‘the’ before sociologist

Deleted

20

Line 184 are not

Fixed

21

Line 365 have knowledge

Fixed

22

Line 401 have not has

Fixed

23

Line 428 missing references at the end of the sentence?

Fixed – reference (Herbert 2015) moved.

Reviewer 1

24

Would like to see more set-up/introduction to the opening lines, "He who can beat..."

Hmm, I rather like it this way. It sets the scene for the article and attracts the reader’s attention. I have added an introduction in the next paragraph (line 55-67).

25

p.1 line 26- "It"-- what/who does "IT" refer to? This entire paragraph could be revamped to be clearer

“It” refers to the use of violence and the above description. However, I have rephrased the sentence to make it clearer.

26

p.2- line 46 Theory and Method: need additional references in first paragraph. Need to be more specific,line 51: "This" ? and line 53, "This is the case..."

More references are added.

The sentence reads: “evolution has equipped us with a psyche that is receptive to the signal the strong body transmits to its surroundings. This is why we treat stronger men with greater respect than weaker men”. I find it clear that “This” refers to the previous sentence and the psyche evolutions has equipped us with.

Similar with “This is the case” – which refers to the attraction of becoming strong. No amendments are made.

27

p.2- participant breakdown requires more information:  Are they Caucasian? Black? Heterosexual? Training for a specific sport

More info added line 68-85.

28

p.3- line 91 (and paragraph that follows) - requires referencing/citation

References added.

29

p.3 - line 111 and on requires referencing/citation

From line 109 (original manus), it is explicated that the following is from Stephen Pinker’s book The Better Angels of Our Nature – A History of Violence and Humanity. I have added the reference earlier on, line 154 in revised manus.

30

p. 4- line 125- could you cite the actual advertisement/Youtube link? vs. Wikipedia

See comment 6. Wikipedia is the best and most extensive reference here. I have added an explanation.

31

p. 4- line 130 "Studies across the world's ..." what studies, include references/citation

The studies are referenced in line 137 in the original (179 in the revised). I have added a few more references.

32

p.8 - discussion form participants on receiving extra attention from women. Assume all participants were heterosexual? There is fairly extensive literature on the culture of muscle building/gym going/bodybuilding and homoeroticism that may be relevant to your analysis.

This is an interesting suggestion. I am aware of this body of literature, but my assessment is that, introducing this would be outside the scope of the present article. I have now emphasised in the methods section that all interviewees identified as heterosexual.

33

34

35

36

37