“I don’t like yoga but I like Pilates.” Where does one begin to understand such sentiments? Pilates, widely recognized today as a Western system of physical conditioning, is often presented as a modern, rehabilitative, and scientific exercise discipline. However, an anthropological lens reveals a more complex genealogy—one that implicates ancient Indian yoga as a foundational, though frequently underacknowledged, influence. As interest grows in the politics of cultural appropriation and the commodification of non-Western traditions, examining the yogic roots of Pilates raises critical questions about cultural borrowing (stealing?), reinvention, and attribution.
Joseph Pilates, the German-born “creator” of the Pilates method, was engaged in studying various movement and wellness practices in the early 20th century, including yoga, Zen meditation, and martial arts (Isacowitz & Clippinger, 2011). Unfortunately, while he never formally trained in yoga as it was practiced in its Indian context, historical accounts suggest he was influenced by yoga’s holistic view of the body and mind, particularly its emphasis on breath control (pranayama), posture (asana), and internal awareness (Singleton, 2010). The six foundational principles of Pilates—concentration, control, center, flow, precision, and breath—mirror yoga’s core tenets (Gallagher & Kryzanowska, 2000) as codified initially by Maharishi Patanjali’s eight-limbed path.
Thus, Pilates is a distorted and incomplete version of yoga, which was first seen in the Yoga Sutras sometime between 200 BCE and 400 CE. Most modern scholars suggest that Maharishi Patanjali’s Yoga Sutras were compiled in India around the early centuries of the Common Era, with a range of estimates spanning from the 2nd century BCE to the 5th century CE (Pradhan, 2014). The prevalent academic consensus places their composition more commonly around 400 CE, acknowledging that Patanjali drew on older traditions and organized existing knowledge into a systematic format.
What emerged from this untrained engagement, however, was not a faithful transmission of yogic practice, but a selective adaptation geared for business. Pilates developed what he called “Contrology,” a system he framed as a rational, scientific method for strengthening the body and cultivating mental discipline (Pilates & Miller, 1945). In doing so, he absorbed aspects of yoga into a Western framework, stripped of its spiritual and philosophical dimensions. Breath, for example, became a tool for enhancing core stability and oxygenating muscles, rather than a means for managing life energy or meditative absorption (Newcombe, 2009; Worthington, 2012). This recontextualization reflects a broader pattern in which non-Western practices are rebranded to align with Western values of productivity, efficiency, and individualism (Jain, 2014). The same patterns are observed in the way Ayurveda and other ancient, holistic practices are rebranded, stripped of their origin, and prepared for the market (Kanojia, 2022).
From an anthropological perspective, this transformation raises questions about cultural appropriation versus cultural exchange. Cultural appropriation refers not simply to borrowing, but to the extraction and repurposing of elements from a marginalized tradition—here, Indian yoga—without proper acknowledgment, understanding, or respect for its original cultural and philosophical framework (Rogers, 2006). In Pilates’ case, while there is obvious evidence of borrowing straight from yoga, there is scant direct attribution, and even less effort to preserve the philosophical coherence of yoga as a system of moral and spiritual cultivation (Singleton, 2010).
The rise of Pilates in the West—particularly its dominance in elite, often white, wellness spaces—can be seen as part of a broader colonial legacy of appropriating and commodifying Eastern knowledge (Jain, 2020). Yoga itself, in its modern transnational forms, has undergone similar processes of decontextualization and commercialization, frequently reduced to posture-based fitness regimens (De Michelis, 2004; Strauss, 2005; Kanojia, 2022). Pilates, though much newer, reflects a trajectory: adapting elements of yoga into a more secular and marketable form, while suppressing and distancing itself from the spiritual and cultural roots of its origin and influences.
This raises ethical concerns for contemporary practitioners and educators. When yoga-derived practices like Pilates are taught and consumed without critical reflection on their origins, they systematically risk erasing the cultural histories that gave rise to them. Additionally, such erasure reinforces power dynamics wherein Western innovators are credited for systems built, at least in part, upon Eastern traditions (Brown, 2013). For social scientists, Pilates offers a case study in reframing borrowing/stealing re-narrated as the complexities of cultural flow in a globalized world. It prompts us to ask: When does borrowing become appropriation? What is lost when traditions are repackaged for new cultural contexts? And how might more equitable, transparent forms of cross-cultural engagement be fostered in the global wellness industry?
Ultimately, acknowledging the yogic roots of Pilates is not merely an academic exercise in tracing influence. It is a call to reevaluate how knowledge moves across cultural boundaries—and who gets to benefit, control, or profit from that movement. Pilates, like many modern wellness practices, stands as a testament to the West’s ongoing habit of disconnecting and extracting cultural knowledge from the ancient world (the Global South), rebranding it, and profiting from it without accountability. Its failure to adequately acknowledge yoga’s foundational influence is not merely an oversight—it is a symptom of a deeper colonial entitlement masked as innovation, hoping the brown man will not notice or raise questions. This systematic erasure reinforces the narrative that Western systems are inherently superior, even when built on the labor and wisdom of other cultures, especially pagan societies. Until the wellness industry confronts these dynamics with honesty and attribution, it remains complicit in cultural theft disguised as secular and modern, misidentified as progress.
References
Brown, C. (2013). Decolonizing Yoga. Yoga Journal. Retrieved from https://www.yogajournal.com/
De Michelis, E. (2004). A History of Modern Yoga: Patanjali and Western Esotericism. Continuum.
Gallagher, S., & Kryzanowska, R. (2000). The Joseph H. Pilates Archive Collection: Photographs, Writings and Designs. Bainbridge Books.
Isacowitz, R., & Clippinger, K. (2011). Pilates Anatomy. Human Kinetics.
Jain, A. R. (2014). Selling Yoga: From Counterculture to Pop Culture. Oxford University Press.
Jain, A. R. (2020). Who is the modern yoga practitioner? In D. White & G.
Kanojia, A. (2022). The politics and promise of yoga: contemporary relevance of an ancient practice. Bloomsbury Publishing PLC.
Mallinson (Eds.), Yoga in Practice (pp. 477–496). Princeton University Press.
Newcombe, S. (2009). The Development of Modern Yoga: A Survey of the Field. Religion Compass, 3(6), 986–1002. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-8171.2009.00167.x
Pilates, J. H., & Miller, W. J. (1945). Return to Life Through Contrology. J.J. Augustin.
Pradhan, B. (2014). Yoga: Original concepts and history. In Yoga and mindfulness based cognitive therapy: A clinical guide (pp. 3-36). Cham: Springer International Publishing.
Rogers, R. A. (2006). From Cultural Exchange to Transculturation: A Review and Reconceptualization of Cultural Appropriation. Communication Theory, 16(4), 474–503. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2885.2006.00277.x
Singleton, M. (2010). Yoga Body: The Origins of Modern Posture Practice. Oxford University Press.
Strauss, S. (2005). Positioning Yoga: Balancing Acts Across Cultures. Berg.
Worthington, N. (2012). Breathing Like a Yogi: The Adaptive Potential of Yoga Breathing Techniques for People Living with Chronic Illness. Health Sociology Review, 21(3), 299–311.