A ‘hobby’ wasn’t always considered a good thing

In the 19th century, as middle-class leisure time increased, it became fashionable to pursue activities that would have previously seemed frivolous. 

Staff

Six in 10 Americans started a new hobby during the pandemic, according to a survey last winter. This is presumably good news for essayists and academics who argue that “Americans need a hobby” and “Millennials don’t have hobbies,” and that “the hobby is dead” – having turned into the side hustle, an informal way to earn money while still working a regular job.

Hobbies occupy a sort of third space: They are not work, though they may demand many hours and much concentration, and they are not leisure, the “freedom provided by the cessation of activities,” as Merriam-Webster puts it. (They are part of what the Romans called otium.) They are “work” for enjoyment, not for pay.  

The word hobby has an interesting history, and so does the concept of the hobby itself. Cultural attitudes have changed greatly about which ones are worth pursuing, and indeed whether having a hobby is desirable at all. 

It is probably safe to say that when hobby was first used in the 15th century, most people didn’t have one, as it referred to a particular kind of horse. A hobby was a small horse that could “amble,” a particularly smooth, quick gait that was prized for long rides over terrible roads. According to the Oxford English Dictionary, the word is a shortened form of Hobbin, the archetypal name for a cart-horse, like Rover for a dog.

The hobby also had a part in medieval folk celebrations. Mummers and Morris dancers often included a person or two dressed up in horse costume, or pretending to ride a wooden stick with a horse’s head. Such hobbyhorses made popular children’s toys, too. 

Since hobbyhorses were the domain of young children and pantomime actors, “riding one’s hobby-horse” or being “on one’s hobby” became an idiom for avidly pursuing an idea or activity that looks silly to others. Novelist Laurence Sterne popularized it in 1759 with “Tristram Shandy” whose characters are obsessed to the point of boring everyone around them with such things as battle reenactments and book collecting.

Hobbies were considered slightly embarrassing, though mostly harmless, through the 18th century. In the 19th century, though, they grew more socially acceptable as middle-class leisure time increased. It became de rigueur for both men and women to pursue activities that would have seemed strange or frivolous a century before. 

In the early 20th century, according to historian Steven Gelber, hobbies “shed the old stigma of eccentricity” and came to be seen as a way to imbue life with meaning and dignity. With a hobby, people could choose their own goals and progress toward them.  

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.