HEALTH PROMOTION INTERNATIONAL
# Oxford University Press 1998
Vol. 13, No. 4
Printed in Great Britain
Canada's Active Living policy: a critical analysis
KIM L. BERCOVITZ
Department of Health Studies and Gerontology, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada
SUMMA RY
The shift from a rigorous prescriptive exercise model
to Canada's moderate `Active Living' is examined. In
its articulation as a `new' and `unique' approach,
Active Living is reaching a critical turning point in
the evolution of fitness policy in Canada. Active Living
claims to represent the emergence of a new way of
thinking and practice, as well as a new domain of
discourse and ideology. In particular, it represents an
example of a `top-down' versus `bottom-up' strategy
for influencing the health of populations. Like the
health promotion field, the literature on Active Living
is replete with jargon and rhetoric. To the extent that
Active Living represents a government-driven concept,
a political agenda is implicit in its mandate. This
article begins with an overview of the social, political
and economic context underlying the evolution of
Active Living. This overview sets the stage for understanding how and why Active Living was created.
Following is a critical analysis of the discourse of
Active Living (for example, lifestyle, empowerment,
community and collaboration). An attempt is made to
unpack meaning and hidden political agendas. What is
revealed are the ways in which discourse has: (i)
functioned to conceal power imbalances between government officials, practitioners and the community; and
(ii) been appropriated by government to justify the
rapid retreat of the welfare state from social responsibility for fitness and health. A discussion of the future
of Active Living is provided. Here I argue that, in so
far as it represents a powerful ideological mechanism
for a de-centralized federal role in fitness, the thrust
toward Active Living will continue.
Key words: discourse; physical activity; policy
INT ROD U CT I ON
Over the past decade, there has been a revolution
in fitness policy and practice. Driven in part by
efforts to curtail rising health care costs and to
increase exercise involvement levels, the federal
Ministry of Fitness and Amateur Sport (FAS)
has attempted to shift public attention away from
a rigorous, prescriptive exercise model to its own
approach to `Active Living'. Traditionally, emphasis has been placed on exercising aerobically
three to five times per week at 60±90% of one's
maximal heart rate for a duration of 15±60+ min
(see American College of Sports Medicine, 1980).
The purpose was to increase overall health and
performance-related physical fitness (i.e. cardiovascular fitness, body composition, flexibility,
and muscular strength and endurance). The
guidelines, however, were adhered to by a small
segment of the Canadian population (Stephens
and Craig, 1990). Active Living takes a `moderate' approach toward involving Canadians, particularly the sedentary and `hard-to-reach', in
physical activity. Daily activities such as gardening, housework, walking or cycling to work, and
taking the stairs are said to provide significant
health benefits for the population-at-large, with
low risk and good adherence. By expanding the
definition of what constitutes physical activity,
Active Living claims to be more accessible and
appealing to the public than the previous prescriptive exercise model.
In its articulation as a `new' and `unique'
approach, Active Living is reaching a critical
319
320 K. L. Bercovitz
turning point in the evolution of fitness in
Canada. It claims to represent the emergence of
a new way of thinking and practice, as well as a
new domain of discourse and ideology. [Discourse is defined as all that is written and
spoken about (Rosenau, 1992). Foucault's
notion of discourse also includes practice (i.e.
what people do). Ideology is broadly defined as
images, language, symbols, ideas, thoughts and
beliefs through which people `represent, interpret, understand, and ``make sense'' of some
aspect of social existence' (Hall, 1981, p. 31).
The underlying premise is that all ideas and beliefs are socially determined and are subject to
being contested.] For example, Active Living is
intended to represent a marriage between individual and social determinants of health (i.e.
agency and structure) and underscores the need
for collaboration at all levels (for example, governments, organizations, practitioners) in order
to improve opportunity for and access to physical
activity. Other prominent features include it:
(i) being anchored in physical activity;
(ii) being focused on holistic health (i.e. physical, mental, emotional, spiritual and social
well-being);
(iii) being inclusive of all types/intensities of
activity and all people;
(iv) addressing the unique needs, skills, and
interests of each individual;
(v) embracing the notion of individual and community empowerment;
(vi) representing a Canadian cultural trademark.
While commended for moving beyond a rigid
elitist fitness model, the evolution of Active
Living has led to the production of a construct
of uncertain meaning and scope. Like the health
promotion field, the literature on Active Living is
replete with jargon and rhetoric such as `lifestyle',
`empowerment', `community', and `collaboration'. In many respects, the discourse of Active
Living bears striking similarities to health promotion discourse. For example, the new definition of fitness as `a state of total well-being of the
individualÐphysical, mental, emotional, spiritual, and social' (Canadian Summit on Fitness,
1986) echoes the 1946 World Health Organization (WHO) health definition. To the extent
that Active Living represents a governmentdriven concept, a political agenda is implicit in
its mandate. This paper begins with an overview
of the social, political, economic and historical
context underlying the evolution Active Living.
This overview sets the stage for understanding
how and why Active Living was created. There
follows a critical analysis of the discourse of
Active Living; attempts are made to reveal meaning and hidden political agendas that have arisen
in response to the shift in fitness policy in
Canada.
SE TTI N G T H E STA GE : C O NT EXT O F
A CTI V E LI VI N G
According to Barbara O'Brien Jewett (1993),
then Acting Assistant Director of Fitness
Canada, The Canadian Summit on Fitness
(June 1986) represents a major turning point for
government involvement in fitness. [The Summit
was attended by 188 delegates from the federal
and provincial/territorial governments, national
voluntary organizations, education, health care,
recreation, fitness, industry and business. It is the
Summit from which the concept of Active Living
evolved.] It marked (publicly) the beginning of
Fitness Canada's shift away from program and
service provision toward a strategic leadership,
facilitating, and collaborative role. Responsibility
for direct program delivery was to fall within the
jurisdiction of the provinces, municipalities, associations and the private sector. To fulfil this
pivotal role, Fitness Canada focused its efforts
on: the reconciliation of federal±provincial and
territorial relations; interdepartmental collaboration at the federal level; partnerships with other
policy development and delivery agencies, including the public and corporate sectors; maintenance
of a national identity and priority in the fitness
field through continued financial and moral support, and a centralized policy role; support for
high-priority target groups, research and leadership development; and the establishment of
Active Living.
Following the coining and official trademarking of the term `Active Living' (11 January 1989
by Mr Lyle Makosky, then Assistant Deputy
Minister, Fitness and Amateur Sport), Fitness
Canada adopted a `cooperative' and `consultative' approach to develop national `Blueprints for
Action'. These Blueprints provided a direction
and a basis for collaborative action in the areas of
target groups (the disabled, children and youth,
the elderly and workers), research, and leadership
development. Active Living Alliances and Secretariats were established to guide the implementation of these blueprints at the national level. In
Canada's Active Living policy
addition, a number of projects, including several
joint federal, provincial and territorial initiatives
were created (see Table 1). The Administration
Bureau for Active Living was established as a
central administration office for the alliances and
organizations. Marcel Danis, Minister of Fitness
and Amateur Sport (1989±1990), stated that the
establishment of the Bureau reflects a `maturing
of the fitness delivery system and the recognition
that the various partners can accomplish much
more by working together and pooling our resources' (Fitness and Amateur Sport, 1990, p. 5).
Active Living was officially launched in 1992, in
conjunction with Canada's 125th Birthday celebrations, the 2nd International Exercise, Fitness
and Health Conference (Toronto), and the
National Workshop on Active Living.
In April 1992, a Ministerial Steering Committee on Active Living was established by the then
Table 1: Overview of National Active Living Infrastructure
1. Alliances, centres, secretariats
. Active Living Alliance for Children and Youth
. Active Living Alliance for Canadians with a Disability
. Active Living Alliance for Older Canadians
. Canadian Centre for Active Living in the Workplace
(CCALW)
. Secretariat for Fitness in the Third Age
. Skills Program for Management Volunteers
. Centre for Leadership on Active Living (CLAC)
. Focus on Active Living '92 Secretariat/Focus on
Active Living '92
. Canada's Fitweek Secretariat
2. Projects
. Canada's Fitweek
. National Walking Campaign
. Vitality (joint Fitness Canada±Health Canada
initiative)
. Green Plan/Go for Green! (joint Environment
Canada±Health Canada initiative)
. Canadian Active Living Challenge
. Quality Daily Physical Education (QDPE)
. Active Living Environment Program (ALEP)
3. Position papers/blueprints
. Because They're Young. Active Living for Canadian
Children and Youth: Blueprint for Action
. Active Living for Canadians with a Disability: A Blueprint for Action
. Working Actively Together. Canada's Blueprint:
Toward Active Living in the Workplace
. Move Through the Years: A Blueprint for Action
. Making the Move . . . Leadership in Active Living: A
Blueprint for Action
. Framework for Research on Active Living: A Blueprint for Action
4. Organizations
. Canadian Association for Health, Physical Education
and Recreation (CAHPER)
. Canadian Intramural Recreation Association (CIRA)
321
Minister of Fitness and Amateur Sport, Pierre
Cadieux, to review the Active Living national
infrastructure and delivery system, and to make
recommendations for improved efficiency and
effectiveness (Minister's Steering Committee on
Active Living, 1993). The Steering Committee
was also responsible for preparing the Fall
Forum on Active Living in Ottawa (30 November±2 December 1992), uniting delegates for the
first time since the 1986 Summit. The Forum
provided an opportunity for partners to come
together to develop a master plan for Active
Living and to explore the building of a `collective'. The outcome included a shared vision and a
consensus on strategic directions. In addition, the
functions and characteristics of a national `collective voice' were identified, and a Task Force
for an Active Living Collective was elected (Fall
Forum on Active Living, 1992). This task force
included nine members from government,
national and provincial organizations, and academia, whose function was to `consult with and
guide the active living community'. The Steering
Committee was strongly inspired by the Fall
Forum to develop a series of recommendations
for its final report in February 1993.
In light of the fiscal constraints, Minister Pierre
Cadieux agreed to support the Steering Committee recommendation to consolidate the Active
Living infrastructure, including the Administrative Bureau for Active Living. By 1 June 1993,
funding to the Secretariats, Alliances and Centres
ceased, over 30 jobs were terminated, and the
Bureau and all its affiliated offices became amalgamated into one organizationÐActive Living
Canada Inc. In addition, recommendations were
made to consolidate four leadership programs,
three national projects and five organizations.
The purpose of these amalgamations was to
enhance the levels of coordination, collaboration
and cooperation, and to increase national planning by reducing duplications and `inefficiencies'
within the Active Living infrastructure (Minister
Cadieux's Address, 1993).
Active Living Canada was established as a
national not-for-profit organization headed by a
Board of Directors comprised of representatives
from the Active Living `community'. Its purpose was to increase strategic development and
coordination among the Active Living milieu.
The key partners included Fitness Canada,
national organizations, ParticipACTION, and
municipal, provincial and territorial governments. Minister Cadieux addressed a need to
322 K. L. Bercovitz
set national directions for Active Living Canada
and to take a `bottom-up' approach through the
representation of provincial/territorial collectives. Emphasis was placed on a `communitybased' approach where the focus of national
and provincial initiatives was on supporting
Active Living at the community level.
During the summer of 1993, the federal government (under the leadership of Progressive
Conservative Prime Minister Kim Campbell)
announced a major reorganization and restructuring of governmentÐ`the most significant
downsizing and restructuring of government
ever undertaken in Canada' (Office of the Prime
Minister, 1993). All Minister of State positions
were eliminated and Fitness and Amateur Sport
was subsequently abolished. Amateur Sport
moved to Canadian Heritage and Fitness
moved to Health Canada. Fitness Canada was
placed within the Health Programs and Services
Branch, which included other areas such as
Health Promotion, Seniors Initiatives, and the
Children's Bureau.
Following the election of Liberal Prime
Minister Jean Chretien, a Fall Assembly on
Active Living was held (28±30 October 1993).
The Assembly highlighted a need for a strong
collective voice to influence governments and
other decision-makers on the importance of
Active Living (Active Living Assembly, 1993).
Also highlighted was the need for improved communications among Active Living agencies and
organizations. Discussion centred around forming a `collective', in order to build a stronger
future for the Active Living community. The
collective was to be `lean, mean, simple and nonbureaucratic', as well as community-driven and
owned. The Board of Directors was eliminated
and replaced by the Active Living collective, consisting of five `stewards' and three governmental
representatives who were responsible for establishing an `enabling model' for communication
and `consensus-building'; working collaboratively
with provinces/territories and municipalities to
ensure linkages from the local to the national
level; and integrating the `community-based'
approach into the `collective-building' process.
DI SC O UR SE O F AC TI VE L IV I NG : WH Y
ACT IV E LI V IN G ? W H Y N O W?
Active Living was packaged by Fitness and
Amateur Sport as a `softer' and more attractive
alternative to the prescriptive exercise model. As
evidenced by the (public and non-public or `grey')
literature, the discourse of Active Living is punctuated by words such as: `well-being', `quality of
life', `lifestyle', `empowerment', `collaboration',
`partnerships', `strategic alliances', `community
development', `mobilization' and `participation'.
But what do these words mean and what underlying purpose do they serve? As Robertson and
Minkler (1994, p. 297) note, `to invoke these
words is to invoke powerful symbolic concepts'.
In this section, I argue that the user-friendly
discourse of Active Living serves to conceal political agendas and ideologies.
Lifestyle
Careful deconstruction of the rhetoric of Active
Living, suggests that, like the lifestyle construct,
Active Living was created as an ideological resolution to structural problems and to the fiscal
crisis of the welfare state. To a large extent,
Active Living is essentially the `old' lifestyle rhetoric in a new guise. Driven by a political climate
of rationalization and economic restraint, independence and self-discipline emerge as dominant
themes (Crawford, 1977; Howell, 1991). Instead
of falling `victim' to systemic malfunctions (for
example, fiscal crises), the discourse of individualism and self-betterment promotes a `do-it-yourself' form of self-help wherein the individual
becomes the `expert' (Howell, 1991).
Active Living functions to divert attention
from structural barriers to fitness by framing
physical activity in terms of personal responsibility and choiceÐa `pull yourself up by the bootstraps' alternative to state intervention (Ingham,
1985, p. 50). The assumption is that the shift
toward a more inclusive and holistic notion of
physical activity will automatically capture the
interests and hearts of all Canadians. The outcome is increased participation among the community-at-large,
resulting
in
improved
population health. [Population health is an
approach that focuses on developing and implementing policies and actions to improve the
health and well-being of the overall population
(Federal, Provincial and Territorial Advisory
Committee on Population Health, 1994).] It is
implied, for instance, that all people should incorporate some form of physical activity, such as
walking to work, into everyday living; however, a
large number of people do not work, and in some
geographic locations, walking provides an unsafe
alternative to public transportation. Moreover,
Canada's Active Living policy
the new gospel of Active Living diverts attention
away from other pressing social (for example,
gender inequalities; substance abuse, personal
safety) and structural (for example, pollution,
poverty, unemployment) issues (Labonte and
Penfold, 1981; Labonte, 1982, 1983; Stein, 1982;
Sparkes, 1989). Active Living is mistakenly
regarded as a panacea for the `ills' of modern
culture (Stein, 1982; Gillick, 1984; Glassner,
1989). As Ingham (1985, p. 54) so aptly states:
What shall we say to the victims of the fiscal crisis of
the Welfare State? What do we have to offer the
currently ill and the about-to-be-ill segments of the
population; those whose illnesses have more to do with
workplace rather than lifestyle, with the ravages of
unemployment rather than defects of character, with
the cumulative effects of impoverishmentÐimpoverishment which is becoming increasingly feminized?
Shall we say that they should aerobicize, jazzercise,
and jog their problems away? Shall we counsel them to
internalize the locus of control?
To the extent that broader societal issues and
concerns are cast as problems that are resolved
through personal active lifestyles, Active Living is
clearly at risk for being de-contextualized and depoliticized (Crawford, 1980; Labonte and Penfold, 1981; Labonte, 1983). Moreover, the ideology of `personal responsibility and choice' can
potentially fall into the trap of `blaming the
victim' for pathogens (i.e. impediments to physical activity) which are essentially structural in
nature (Ryan, 1971; Crawford, 1980; Labonte
and Penfold, 1981). As Vertinsky (1985, p. 75)
points out,
The fitness craze does not involve the poor and the
unemployed cheerfully recreating out of doors on a
shoestring, and checking that they have balanced their
intake of the four food groups at the end of each day.
Empowerment
Empowerment has traditionally been defined in
the public health field as the amount of power or
powerlessness one feels (Wallerstein, 1992). Used
more broadly, empowerment is a multi-level construct that involves individuals, organizations
and communities gaining control and mastery
over their lives. This definition is analogous to
the WHO (1986) definition of health promotion:
`a process of enabling individuals and communities to increase control over the determinants of
health'. The idea of empowerment is rooted in the
civil rights and women's movements, as well as
`social action ideology' of the 1960s, `self-help'
323
ideology of the 1970s, and community psychology theory of the 1980s. In the 1990s, empowerment has become part of a growing movement
towards citizens regaining control over many
areas of life, including medicine, health, the
physical environment and the body (see Rappaport, 1985; Rissel, 1994).
The notion of empowerment is particularly
relevant to the construct of Active Living. First,
Active Living underscores subjectivity over type
and meaning of physical activity. Individuals are
encouraged to define what living actively means
to them and to choose activities which are best
suited to personal interests and tastes. The process of Active Living essentially empowers people
by increasing self-discovery and self-actualization
through physical activity. Second, Active Living
promotes personal responsibility for health by
discharging individuals from dependency on professional `experts' and specialized programs and
services. Emphasis is placed on `letting the power
go to the people' by having people take charge of
their lives. At the community level, Active Living
empowers individuals and community groups to
take control over the outdoors through participation in environmental citizenship activities (for
example, park clean-ups, tree planting) and the
use of alternative non-motorized transportation.
The term `empowerment' is becoming an ambiguous and ubiquitous `buzzword' in health and
fitness fields (Wallerstein and Bernstein, 1994).
Too frequently, this term is being misused and
misappropriated. Empowerment is especially
being appropriated by politicians, bureaucrats,
organizations and practitioners to justify privatization and people (for example, individuals or
communities) `doing for themselves'. The word
empowerment, however, is misleading. At its core
is the concept of power, the root of which is the
Latin `potere', meaning the ability to choose.
Ironically, as Labonte (1989, p. 24) notes, `[w]e
cannot empower anybody, because to presume to
do so strips people of their ability to choose.
Groups and individuals can only empower and
motivate themselves.' Labonte (see Focus on
Active Living, 1992a) further argues that it is
arrogant for professionals to assume that they
can `empower' individuals and communities to
take control over their health, since the approach
keeps the power in the professional's hands.
Although the discourse attempts to position
the individual or community as the `initiator' or
as being `in control', `there is still an external
agent in a background role that has controlling
324 K. L. Bercovitz
implications' (Grace, 1991, p. 331). The `them/us'
or `client/expert' dichotomy, however, is replaced
by terms such as `participant', `collaborator',
`facilitator', `enabler' and `consultant' (Labonte,
1990; Bernstein et al., 1994). This creates the
illusion of the community and the professional
being equal partners in setting the health and
fitness agenda (Robertson and Minkler, 1994). In
reference to Active Living, the role of the fitness
practitioner is recast from that of `expert' who
provides specialized programs and services, to
that of `community animator'Ðsomeone who
promotes the concept of Active Living, and
facilitates collaboration and community mobilization through consultations and the provision of
informational support.
Although intuitively appealing, the rhetoric of
empowerment serves to disguise power imbalances, as well as the a priori (hidden) agenda of
ownership and control. For example, the shift
toward partnerships and other egalitarian or
non-hierarchical relationships masks the structural and power differentials that exist between
professionals and individuals or communities.
Professionals possess specialized bodies of knowledge and skills, and use a different language to
discuss and frame health issues (Robertson and
Minkler, 1994).
Further, professionals use their hegemonic
positions to reproduce social relations of power
(for example, gender, class and racial inequities)
(Messner and Sabo, 1994; Kidd, 1995) and privilege in society (Freidson, 1970a, b; Johnson,
1972; Larson, 1977, 1979; Turner, 1987).
The very location of the professional in an
organization or bureaucracyÐi.e. `institutional
embeddedness' (Gruber and Trickett, 1987)Ð
also implies a degree of power (Robertson and
Minkler, 1994). The fact that the term `Active
Living' was both created and trademarked by
government (i.e. Fitness and Amateur Sport),
not the community, is illustrative of this point.
This begs the following questions: Who is the
`empowerer' and the `empoweree'? Who has the
power to set the agenda of Active Living? Whose
interests and needs are being served? As Gruber
and Trickett (1987, p. 370) note, there is a
`fundamental paradox in the idea of people
empowering others because the very institutional
structure that puts one group in a position to
empower also works to undermine the act of
empowerment'. The extent to which power is
held over `clients' may also reflect feelings of
powerlessness among professionals or within
organizations (Labonte, 1990). For example, academics and exercise practitioners have struggled
to define and delineate the boundaries of exercise,
in order to achieve status and scientific legitimacy
(Macintosh and Whitson, 1990). Here, the `FITT'
principle, which stipulates `frequency, intensity,
time and type' of activity, has traditionally been
used in exercise prescription and program planning. There has been a recent proliferation of
exercise science research endorsing the health
benefits of moderate physical activity (see Blair
et al., 1992; US Department of Health and
Human Services, 1996). However, I argue that
this research has been appropriated by the federal
government (i.e. Fitness Canada) to secure a
unique place for fitness within the broader
health (i.e. Health Canada) and population
health mandate (Bercovitz, 1996).
Community and collaboration
Empowerment as both a construct and a strategy
has helped us move beyond the `victim-blaming'
ideology of the lifestyle approach (Labonte,
1990). However, in the case of Active Living, I
would argue that it is disempowering in the sense
that it was created not as a community-driven
construct but as a government-based movement,
couched in its own bureaucratic language. The
ideology of Active Living is contradictory. On
the one hand, Active Living was created as a
government-driven concept. On the other hand,
national and provincial government initiatives
were directed at supporting Active Living at
the community level. It is questionable whether
Active Living is or has the potential to become
community-based or community-driven and
owned. First, a `top-down' approach was used
to infiltrate the Active Living message from
federal to provincial/territorial governments
down to national/provincial organizations,
public health units, practitioners, and the community-at-large. Labonte (1990) rejects the
umbrella term `community development' (i.e.
community involvement and ownership);
instead, he supports the notion of communitybased programmingÐ`taking the agenda of
government to local community groups' (p. 70).
Second, there was no evidence to suggest that the
community (i.e. lay persons) and `frontline' or
`grass-roots' practitioners were involved in the
conceptualization of Active Living, or included
as part of its national infrastructure. Third, there
was uncertainty over whether the public was
aware of Active Living and whether they under-
Canada's Active Living policy
stood its underlying meaning (Mummery and
Sefton, 1994).
The discourse of Active Living also reveals a
strong emphasis on collaboration and consensusbuilding, as evidenced by words such as `shared
vision', `working together', `the Active Living
collective or milieu', `participatory decisionmaking', `resource sharing', `partnerships',
`strategic alliances', `coalition building', `cooperation' and `coordination'. Like empowerment, this seemingly neutral rhetoric serves to
mask conflict at the community level, as well as
the hidden political agenda underlying Active
Living. The literature on Active Living suggests
that the shift toward empowerment and
collaboration coincided with trends toward decentralization and rationalization of government
in the 1990s. Advocates (for example, senior
bureaucrats) argued that Active Living was created in response to the federal government's task
at re-thinking its own role in society. In particular, Fitness and Amateur Sport was looking to
become less `hands-on' in the area of leadership,
program development and delivery. At the same
time, to ensure its political and organizational
survival, Fitness and Amateur Sport needed to
shift its focus away from physical fitness and
toward the health arena (i.e. health promotion
and population health).
In spite of its renewed focus, the bureaucratic
and political discourse of Active Living has the
potential to be misused by neo-conservative
governments in an era of fiscal conservatism.
Conceivably, the concept of `empowerment',
combined with the political ideology of individualism and the return to `the community', is used
implicitly to justify the retreat of the welfare state
from social responsibility for fitness and health
(Binney and Estes, 1988; Robertson and Minkler,
1994). The success of this ideological retreat is
manifested by the powerful bureaucratic rhetoric
of Active Living, as well as by the widespread
multi-media coverage of ParticipACTION and
Active Living messages (for example, `Just walking the dog'). Active Living is typically packaged
and sold as an adaptable, `low or no cost' population approach to physical activity. The message
conveyed in the 1990s is that `in times of fiscal
constraint, walking offers a simple, inexpensive
route to an active lifestyle'. As declared by Fitness and Amateur Sport, `Active Living can
provide the means of doing more with less'
(Focus on Active Living, 1992b, p. 4).
Following the arguments made by Binney and
325
Estes (1988) concerning the retreat of the state
from intergenerational responsibility, I argue
that, in spite of its dual and contradictory role
(see Offe, 1984), the state must legitimate its
policies of fiscal restraint with ideological tools
that obscure the underlying `politics' of Active
Living. Although disguised by the semantics of
inclusivity and emancipation from dependency
on professionals and societal institutions, this
ideology has clearly been used by Fitness and
Amateur Sport to justify budget cuts to fitness
(i.e. research and program development) and
withdrawal of `expert authority', as well as
formal exercise programs and services (on the
politics of fiscal austerity, see, for example,
Estes, 1980; Minkler, 1984; Binney and Estes,
1988; Northcott, 1993; Labonte, cited in Bernstein et al., 1994; Robertson and Minkler, 1994;
Robertson, 1998). Table 2 illustrates the disproportionate funds allocated to elite sport over
population approaches to fitness. Bakker
(1990) would argue that Active Living is an
example of one outcome of `economic renewal'
by the Tory government. Active Living is thus
constructed and used as a political and ideological mechanism which facilitates the restructuring and rationalization of government, and
Table 2: Sport Canada and Fitness Canada
contribution allocations
Years
1971/1972
1972/1973
1973/1974
1974/1975
1975/1976
1976/1977
1977/1978
1978/1979
1979/1980
1980/1981
1981/1982
1982/1983
1983/1984
1984/1985
1985/1986
1986/1987
1987/1988
1988/1989
1989/1990
1990/1991
1991/1992
1992/1993
Sport Canada
5 823
6 891
8 679
8 554
12 832
20 854
19 650
22 991
21 668
26 462
31 124
40 429
43 363
47 870
50 534
50 558
51 145
57 200
55 580
68 776
68 255
72 162
472
233
929
155
938
872
478
328
601
076
975
128
448
000
428
340
460
576
000
000
000
084
Fitness Canada
433
2 097
3 129
3 436
3 848
3 912
4 776
5 181
3 908
6 480
6 202
6 382
7 144
7 787
7 568
7 606
7 409
7 565
8 458
7 830
8 950
9 823
905
897
913
201
434
277
402
218
303
134
000
441
813
000
065
027
117
527
000
000
000
289
Ratio
3:1
3:1
3:1
3:1
3:1
5:1
4:1
4:1
6:1
4:1
5:1
6:1
6:1
6:1
7:1
7:1
7:1
8:1
7:1
9:1
8:1
7:1
Source: Fitness and Amateur Sport Annual Reports (1971/
1972±1992/93).
326 K. L. Bercovitz
essentially permits the abdication of responsibility for fitness to the individual and to other less
costly `mediating structures' such as the community (Robertson and Minkler, 1994).
SU MMA RY AN D C O NC LU SI O N : W H ERE
TO FRO M H ERE ?
The literature on Active Living is replete with
references to the individual, the community, and
collaboration. An attempt was made to unpack
and situate the discourse of Active Living within
a social, political and economic context. This
paper has illustrated the extent to which Active
Living is packaged as a powerful discourse for
the rapid retreat of the welfare state (Robertson,
1998). In an era of fiscal restraint, governments
and institutions are forced to redefine their role in
society. The rhetoric of Active Living supports
the notion that social problems are constructed in
a cyclical manner. In the presence of fiscal austerity, social problems become redefined to necessitate less costly and efficient `solutions'
(Minkler, 1984; Grace, 1991; Minkler and
Robertson, 1991). One solution to the sagging
economy of the 1980s was to shift responsibility
for social problems from the federal to provincial/municipal governments and `arms-length'
organizations, and ultimately to discharge them
from government onto the individual and the
community. In spite of this decentralization,
emphasis has shifted to collaboration, rationalization, and resource sharing across and within
all levels of government, national and provincial
organizations, researchers, and practitioners.
What is the fate of Active Living? To the extent
that its evolution has been shaped by social,
political and economic forces, it is questionable
whether Active Living is more than `just a passing
fad' (Bercovitz and Skinner, 1996). Fitness
Canada's mandate has the potential to fluctuate
along with changing ministers and political mandates. Traditionally, Fitness and Amateur Sport
has oscillated between a sport and a fitness focus,
depending on the extent to which either could be
used as a springboard for fulfilling broader sociopolitical and economic agendas. For example,
sport became a focus of Prime Minister Pierre
Trudeau's Liberal era (1968±1979, 1980±1983)
because it coincided with Trudeau's vision of
nationalism and internationalism. Sport was
used strategically as a political symbol through
which national unity and cultural identity were
fostered (Harvey and Proulx, 1988; Macintosh
and Hawes, 1994). During Prime Minister Brian
Mulroney's Conservative era (1984±1992), Active
Living was created and subsequently evolved as a
neo-conservative post-welfare-state measure.
It is no surprise that the pinnacle of Active
Living promotion campaigns, the focus of which
was on the notions of `empowerment' and `strategic alliances', coincided with the recession of
the early 1990s. Active Living evolved because it
was ripe for the changing socio-political and
economic climate in Canada. Its birth coincided
with: (i) socio-demographic changes (i.e. the
aging or `greying' of the population, rise in multiculturalism); (ii) the resurgence of interest in the
social determinants of health and equity issues;
(iii) concerns about rising health care costs; and
(iv) the focus on health promotion and population health. Politicians and policy-makers
became attracted to Active Living because of its
wide appeal and its ability to provide a better
political future for the field. Active Living
enabled Fitness and Amateur Sport to broaden
its mandate and scope beyond high-performance
sport and physical fitness, in order to engage a
larger segment of the Canadian population in
physical activity and to collaborate with other
federal ministries, including Health Canada and
Environment Canada. Active Living was thus
instrumental in ensuring the political and organizational survival of Fitness Canada within the
context of Fitness and Amateur Sport and later
Health Canada (Bercovitz, 1996).
How will physical activity unfold in the year
2000? During an era of cost containment and
fiscal restraint, it is my contention that the thrust
toward Active Living will continue. This is evidenced by the re-naming of Fitness Canada to
The Fitness and Active Living Unit (under
Health Canada). Clearly, Active Living represents a powerful ideological mechanism for a
de-centralized federal role in fitness. This article
does not attempt to develop strategies to facilitate
the shift from government discourse to professional and community practice. Communities
themselves can be just as powerful and repressive
as governments (Lyon, 1989). As Poland (1993)
points out, community interventions are just as
likely to be co-opted by professional and `special
interest group' agendas as are provincial and
federal interventions. Moreover, in light of the
contested nature of Active Living, any strategies
for change are likely to be challenged and contested in their own right. While acknowledging
Canada's Active Living policy
many of its underlying limitations, I do maintain
that for Active Living to be a viable construct,
enhanced government support (for example,
financial, technical) is ideally needed. Thus far,
governments have provided `lip-service' rather
than direct service for Active Living, particularly
at the grass-roots levels. If Active Living is to
become a sustaining construct, then both federal
and provincial ministries need to shift their power
base and move beyond the rhetoric to facilitate
the implementation of Active Living at municipal
and `bottom-based' levels (for example, fitness/
health organizations, public health units, and
communities).
ACK N O WLED G EMEN TS
This manuscript draws on a grant from the
Canadian Fitness and Lifestyle Research Institute. Preparation of this manuscript was supported by a National Cancer Institute of
Canada postdoctoral fellowship with funds
from the Canadian Cancer Society. Insightful
comments provided by Drs Roy Cameron,
Peter Donnelly and Irving Rootman, and two
anonymous reviewers on earlier drafts are gratefully appreciated.
Address for correspondence:
Dr Kim Bercovitz
Health Behaviour Research Group
Department of Health Studies and Gerontology
University of Waterloo
200 University Avenue West, Room MC 6082
Waterloo
Ontario N2L 3G1
Canada
REF EREN C ES
Active Living Assembly (29±31 October 1993) Unpublished
summary report, Fern Resort, Orillia, Canada.
American College of Sports Medicine (1980) Guidelines for
Graded Exercise Testing and Exercise Prescription, 2nd edn.
Lea & Febiger, Philadelphia, PA.
Bakker, I. (1990) The size and scope of government: Robin
Hood sent packing? In Whittington, M. S. and Williams, G.
(eds) Canadian Politics in the 1990s. Nelson Canada,
Ontario, pp. 423±447.
Bercovitz, K. L. (1996) A critical analysis of Canada's `Active
Living': science or politics? Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Toronto.
Bercovitz, K. L. and Skinner, H. A. (1996) Active Living: just
a passing fad? Canadian Journal of Public Health, 87, 275±
279.
Bernstein, E., Wallerstein, N., Braithwaite, R., Gutierrez, L.,
327
Labonte, R. and Zimmerman, M. (1994) Empowerment
Forum: a dialogue between Guest Editorial Board members. Health Education Quarterly, 21, 281±294.
Binney, E. A. and Estes, C. L. (1988) The retreat of the state
and its transfer of responsibility: the intergenerational war.
International Journal of Health Services, 18, 83±96.
Blair, S. N., Kohl, H. W., Gordon, N. F. and Paffenbarger, R.
S. (1992). How much physical activity is good for health?
Annual Review of Public Health, 13, 99±126.
Canadian Summit on Fitness (1986) Fitness . . . the Future.
Fitness and Amateur Sport, Ottawa.
Crawford, R. (1977) You are dangerous to your health: the
ideology and politics of victim blaming. International Journal of Health Services, 7, 663±680.
Crawford, R. (1980) Healthism and the medicalization of
everyday life. International Journal of Health Services, 10,
365±388.
Estes, C. L. (1980) Constructions of reality. Journal of Social
Issues, 36, 117±132.
Fall Forum on Active Living (30 November±2 December
1992) Unpublished summary paper, Ottawa.
Federal, Provincial and Territorial Advisory Committee on
Population Health (1994) Strategies for Population Health.
Minister of Supply and Services, Ottawa.
Fitness and Amateur Sport (1990) Fitness and Amateur Sport
Annual Report 1989±1990. Minister of Supply and Services,
Ottawa.
Focus on Active Living (1992a) Reducing inequities through
Active Living. Focus on Active Living. A Resource Letter, 1,
1±3.
Focus on Active Living (1992b) An asset in changing times.
Focus on Active Living. A Resource Letter, 1, 4.
Freidson, E. (1970a) Profession of Medicine. Harper & Row,
New York.
Freidson, E. (1970b) Professional Dominance. Aldine, Chicago, IL.
Gillick, M. R. (1984) Health promotion, jogging, and the
pursuit of the moral life. Journal of Health Politics, Policy
and Law, 9, 369±387.
Glassner, B. (1989) Fitness and the postmodern self. Journal
of Health and Social Behavior, 30, 180±191.
Grace, V. M. (1991) The marketing of empowerment and the
construction of the health consumer: a critique of health
promotion. International Journal of Health Services, 21,
329±343.
Gruber, J. and Trickett, E. J. (1987) Can we empower others:
the paradox of empowerment in the governing of an alternative public school. American Journal of Community
Psychology, 15, 353±371.
Hall, S. (1981) The whites of their eyes. Racist ideologies and
the media. In Bridges, G. and Brunt, R. (eds) Silver Linings.
Some Strategies for the Eighties. Lawrence & Wishart,
London, pp. 28±52.
Harvey, J. and Proulx, R. (1988) Sport and the state in
Canada. In Harvey, J. and Cantelon, H. (eds) Not Just a
Game. University of Ottawa Press, Ottawa, pp. 93±119.
Howell, J. (1991) `A revolution in motion': advertising and
the politics of nostalgia. Sociology of Sport Journal, 8, 258±
271.
Ingham, A. G. (1985) From public issue to personal trouble:
well-being and the fiscal crisis of the state. Sociology of
Sport Journal, 2, 43±55.
Johnson, T. (1972) Professions and Power. The Anchor Press,
Tiptree, Essex.
Kidd, B. (1995) Inequality in sport, the corporation, and the
328 K. L. Bercovitz
state: an agenda for social scientists. Journal of Sport and
Social Issues, 19, 232±248.
Labonte, R. (1982) Half-truths about health. Policy Options,
3, 54±55.
Labonte, R. (1983) Keeping fit in a sick society: the ideology
of health promotion. Our Generation, 16, 35±51.
Labonte, R. (1989) Community and professional empowerment. The Canadian Nurse, March, 23±28.
Labonte, R. (1990) Empowerment: notes on professional and
community dimensions. Canadian Review of Social Policy,
26, 64±75.
Labonte, R. and Penfold, S. (1981) Canadian perspectives in
health promotion: a critique. Health Education, 20, 4±9.
Larson, M. S. (1977) The Rise of Professionalism: A Sociological Analysis. University of California Press, Berkeley,
CA.
Larson, M. S. (1979) Professionalism: rise and fall. International Journal of Health Services, 9, 607±627.
Lyon, L. (1989) The Community in Urban Society. Lexington
Books, Toronto.
Macintosh, D. and Whitson, D. (1990) The Game Planners.
McGill±Queen's University Press, Montreal and Kingston,
Canada.
Macintosh, D. and Hawes, M. (1994) Sport and Canadian
Diplomacy. McGill±Queen's University Press, Montreal
and Kingston, Canada.
Messner, M. A. and Sabo, D. F. (1994) Sex, Violence & Power
in Sports: Rethinking Masculinity. The Crossing Press,
Freedom, CA.
Minister Cadieux's Address (1993) Changes to the Active
Living national infrastructure. Unpublished speech,
Ottawa, 9 March.
Minister of State, Fitness and Amateur Sport (1993) Minister's Steering Committee on Active Living. Final report.
Unpublished report, Ottawa, February.
Minkler, M. (1984) Blaming the aged victim: the politics of
retrenchment in times of fiscal conservatism. In Minkler,
M. and Estes, C. L. (eds) Readings in the Political Economy
of Aging. Baywood, New York, pp. 254±269.
Minkler, M. and Robertson, A. (1991) The ideology of `age/
race wars': deconstructing a social problem. Ageing and
Society, 11, 1±22.
Mummery, W. K. and Sefton, J. M. (1994) Active LivingÐ
what does it mean to Albertans. Paper presented at the 10th
Commonwealth and International Scientific Congress, Victoria, British Columbia, 10±14 August, Victoria, Canada.
Northcott, H. C. (1993) The politics of fiscal austerity and
threats to Medicare. Health in Canadian Society, 1, 347±366.
O'Brien Jewett, B. (1993) Milestones in the evolution of
Fitness Canada. Unpublished working paper, Ottawa.
Offe, C. (1984) Contradictions of the Welfare State. Hutchinson, London.
Office of the Prime Minister (1993) Unpublished news release,
Ottawa, 25 June.
Poland, B. D. (1993) Concept and practice in community
mobilization for health: a qualitative evaluation of the
Brantford COMMIT Smoking Cessation Intervention
Trial. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada.
Rappaport, J. (1985) The power of empowerment language.
Social Policy, 16, 15±21.
Rissel, C. (1994) Empowerment: the holy grail of health
promotion? Health Promotion International, 9, 39±47.
Robertson, A. (1998) Shifting discourses on health in Canada:
from health promotion to population health. Health Promotion International, 13, 155±166.
Robertson, A. and Minkler, M. (1994) The new health
promotion movement: a critical examination. Health Education Quarterly, 21, 295±312.
Rosenau, P. M. (1992) Postmodernism and the Social Sciences.
Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.
Ryan, W. (1971) Blaming the Victim. Vintage Books, New
York.
Sparkes, A. (1989) Health related fitness: an example of
innovation without change. The British Journal of Physical
Education, Summer, 60±63.
Stein, H. F. (1982) Neo-Darwinism and survival through
fitness in Reagan's America. The Journal of Psychohistory,
10, 163±187.
Stephens, T. and Craig, C. L. (1990) The Well-Being of
Canadians: Highlights of the 1988 Campbell's Survey. The
Canadian Fitness and Lifestyle Research Institute, Ottawa.
Turner, B. S. (1987) Medical Power and Social Knowledge.
SAGE, Beverly Hills, CA.
US Department of Health and Human Services (1996) Physical Activity and Health: A Report of the Surgeon General.
US Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for
Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion,
Atlanta, GA.
Vertinksy, P. (1985) Risk benefit analysis of health promotion: opportunities and threats for physical education.
Quest, 37, 71±83.
Wallerstein, N. (1992) Powerlessness, empowerment, and
health: implications for health promotion programs. American Journal of Health Promotion, 6, 197±205.
Wallerstein, N. and Bernstein, E. (1994) Introduction to
community empowerment, participatory education and
health. Health Education Quarterly, 21, 141±148.
World Health Organization (1946) Constitution. World
Health Organization, New York.
World Health Organization (1986) Ottawa Charter for Health
Promotion. Canadian Public Health Association, Ottawa.