Social Exclusion in Rock Climbing
Social exclusion refers to the inability of certain groups or individuals to participate fully in rock climbing- a sport that can provide countless socioemotional benefits. Climbing has a unique ability to help participants develop both mental and physical resilience, a quality that prepares them to navigate the complexities of life. Outdoor education and recreation are a subset of experiential education, a teaching philosophy in which educators engage with learners in direct experience and focused reflection but it's typically costly and only available to those who can afford it. Outdoor education and recreation can promote positive personal development and establish socioemotional skills that are hard to provide and practice in traditional settings. However, these opportunities are almost impossible for those experiencing poverty or located in rural or underserved communities. Few gyms offer reduced-price programs, such as The Spot’s Sliding Scale Membership, for those who cannot afford memberships.
This is a classic example of social exclusion.
I completely acknowledge that climbing is not a ‘normal sport,’ and for those experiencing poverty or in an underserved community, it’s almost impossible to access. Of course, that’s assuming that they want to try this activity in the first place.
Every time we promote a new activity, we add to the language used to define it. The words we use, how we express them, and the images we choose to represent our sport determine the response from potential new climbers. For every new person we attract, we risk losing many more. We need to think carefully about what we are offering and why. Are we offering more choices and diverse activities for those already likely to participate? Or are we trying to attract more diverse participants who may be excluded? These two very different things may continue to promote social exclusion in outdoor education experiences.
Rock climbing is a sport that has traditionally been (and still is) dominated by white men. It is also, unfortunately, saturated with racist, misogynistic, and homophobic themes. In West Virginia along the New River Gorge, where formerly enslaved people sought work in the early 20th century, route names such as “Tar Baby,” “Aryan Race” and “Slave Fingers” on “Cotton Top” crag are painful reminders of a not-too-distant traumatic history.
This occurs across the country and was only addressed as recently as 2020.
Outdoor recreation has historically held barriers against people of color. For example, Virginia’s first national park, Shenandoah, remained segregated until 1950. Even after the integration effort, basic amenities like hotels and gas stations surrounding Shenandoah were segregated. It's no wonder that many minorities have felt (and continue to feel) unwelcome in the outdoor industry.
Outdoor recreation is often rooted in the white settler experience. It pays little attention to those who lived in outdoor spaces before white people. Until recently, outdoor recreation sports such as rock climbing have focused on ‘conquering’ the rock, ‘dominating’ the mountain, or ‘commanding’ mother nature to your will. This perspective eliminates native peoples' knowledge from the discussion, leaving some cultures as untapped resources.
So what can we, as rock climbers, do to make our sport a safe and welcoming space for those traditionally excluded?
We must acknowledge the past. We can't forget that the outdoor industry has completely isolated entire groups of people. We can’t ignore the fact that some members of our community have disrespected the land that gave us our sport or that many route names still have racist, misogynistic, and homophobic themes.
We need to actively address our mistakes. Actions speak louder than words, and we must work hard to correct our past wrongdoings, especially if we want our community to feel welcome. This can be done by creating reduced-price programs and adding native land acknowledgments to climbing guidebooks (both print and digital).
We need to educate all members of our community, not just our children (although that is a good starting point). I recently conducted an informal survey of the climbing community, which included 273 participants with an age range of less than 18 to over 50. A Likert Scale measured the intensity of feelings on various aspects of the climbing community (Table 1). Demographic data such as age, race, gender identity, and ethnicity were collected, as well as sexuality, transgender-identifying, and disability status. Likert Scale responses were averaged according to age, gender identity, sexual orientation, race, disability status, and trans-identifying. Averages were then compared to the dominant respondent group, and the p-value was determined.
The most striking difference in this preliminary study was noted between gender identity. 7 out of the 8 Likert Scale statements were significantly different (p<0.05) between males and females, demonstrating a statistical difference between male and female participants' comfort in the rock climbing community (Table 2). Gender identity allowed me the most participants per group, so it’s no surprise that this noted the greatest significant difference.
With all the data collected, those not represented in the survey speak volumes. There were considerably more straight, white people than any other respondents. Most respondents indicated they had the resources to pay for and access climbing knowledge and facilities, the average never falling below neutral. Only trans-identifying people stated that they disagreed that the climbing community was welcoming of their identity.
Is this because the rock-climbing community is genuinely welcoming? Or is it because these were the only people currently able to participate in the sport due to its systemic barriers?
I don't know the answer to this question, but I can say that climbing is no more immune to systemic racism, misogyny, and discrimination than any other sports industry. This brief, informal study is just a start. We can always do better.
To learn more about social exclusion, critical race theory, and other concepts in this article, please check out the following resources:
Brooks, Scott N., et al. “Some Kids Are Left behind: The Failure of a Perspective, Using Critical Race Theory to Expand the Coverage in the Sociology of Youth Sports.” Sociology Compass, vol. 11, no. 2, Feb. 2017. DOI.org (Crossref), https://doi.org/10.1111/soc4.12445.
Erickson, Beth, et al. “Rocky Mountain National Park: History and Culture as Factors in African-American Park Visitation.” Journal of Leisure Research, vol. 41, no. 4, Dec. 2009, pp. 529–45. DOI.org (Crossref), https://doi.org/10.1080/00222216.2009.11950189.
Fernández-Gavira, Jesús, et al. “Vulnerable Groups at Risk for Sport and Social Exclusion.” Journal of Physical Education and Sport, vol. 17, no. 1, Mar. 2017, pp. 312–26., https://doi.org/DOI:10.7752/jpes.2017.01047.
Haudenhuyse, Reinhard. “Sport, Social Exclusion and the Forgotten Art of Researching Poverty: Book Review of Sport and Social Exclusion (2nd Ed.). By Mike Collins and Tess Kay. New York: Routledge, 2014, 320 Pp.; ISBN: 978-0-415-56880-7.” Social Inclusion, vol. 3, no. 3, June 2015, pp. 153–57. DOI.org (Crossref), https://doi.org/10.17645/si.v3i3.211.
Hylton, Kevin. “‘Race’, Sport and Leisure: Lessons from Critical Race Theory.” Leisure Studies, vol. 24, no. 1, Jan. 2005, pp. 81–98. DOI.org (Crossref), https://doi.org/10.1080/02614360412331313494.
“Now That’s What I Call Racism!” The American Climbing Project, https://www.americanclimbingproject.com/episodes/nowthatswhaticallracism.
Kandula, Ikya. “The Racism of the Great Outdoors.” The Washington Post, 19 May 2021, https://www.washingtonpost.com/magazine/2021/05/19/rock-climbers-color-face-host-obstacles-this-group-is-trying-change-that/.
Storr, Ryan, et al. “Are We There yet? (Illusions of) Inclusion in Sport for LGBT+ Communities in Australia.” International Review for the Sociology of Sport, vol. 57, no. 1, Feb. 2022, pp. 92–111. DOI.org (Crossref), https://doi.org/10.1177/10126902211014037.
Yosso, Tara J. “Whose Culture Has Capital? A Critical Race Theory Discussion of Community Cultural Wealth.” Race Ethnicity and Education, vol. 8, no. 1, Mar. 2005, pp. 69–91. DOI.org (Crossref), https://doi.org/10.1080/1361332052000341006.
A special thanks to all those who participated in this survey and shared it on social media.