Reflection Journal paper
Reflection journal entries should be no more than 5 minutes in length if they are produced in another form.
please look at the readings for the week that is coming up.
Read one of the articles, Then, after you have done the readings, pick 1 concept from those readings. Once you pick a concept from one of those readings, then what you need to do is connect it somehow to an element of popular culture or something in your daily life. That is all.
So basically do:
1. Pick a concept from the readings from class that are posted.
2. Write a summary of that concept so that I know you know about that concept from the readings.
3. Connect that concept to something from your daily life or a piece of popular culture.
4. Include a works cited page, that can have just the 1 one reading that you used from the course. ”
( you will find the readings attached, just pick one of them please.)
((( I need 2 Different presentations )))
( There is a sample of the work that you should be doing ” see the ppt file ” and do the same thing )
Feminism & Psychology
22(3) 388–402
! The Author(s) 2012
Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0959353512445358
fap.sagepub.com
eminism &
sychology F P
Special Issue Article
Disrupting normal: Toward the ‘ordinary and familiar’ in fat politics
Zoë Meleo-Erwin City University of New York, USA
Abstract
As a nascent movement, fat activism must look critically at the tactics and strategies it
chooses precisely because the movement is helping to produce ‘Fat’ as a mode of
subjectification and identification. I argue that the desire of some fat activists to bring
fatness under the banner of ‘normal,’ particularly through attempts to link certain forms
of fatness and health, is a losing battle. Further, this strategy may lead to an ethic of
assimilation that leaves behind the very people that fat activism should most benefit and
represent. By drawing the connections between queer theory, disability studies and fat
activism, I suggest that bodily normativity is an unstable category that must be con-
stantly re/performed because it is always, in effect, failing (McRuer 2006). Given this, fat
activism should resist the seduction of normal and instead develop a more critical
politics of embodiment and more effective challenge to healthism. I suggest that Eli
Clare’s (2002) notion of the ‘ordinary and familiar’ offers one such framework.
Keywords
Disability politics, healthism, identity, normativity, queer theory
There’s a certain ontological irony to the proliferation of discourse around the ‘obesity epidemic’ that has occurred during the late 20th and early 21st centuries:1
Broad-based attention to the epic numbers of individuals who are considered obese, or dangerously close to becoming so, and the purported links between obes- ity and morbidity have increased attention to the importance of losing weight. Despite this heightened attention, in the United States, public health and medical officials have admitted that despite their best efforts, the ‘war against obesity’2 is not producing the intended results as rates of obesity are reportedly on the rise. In 2001, the United States Surgeon General reported that, although progress had
Corresponding author:
Zoë Meleo-Erwin, PhD Program in Sociology, CUNY Graduate Center, 365 Fifth Avenue, Room 6112.04,
New York, NY 10016, USA
Email: Zmeleo-Erwin@gc.cuny.edu
http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1177%2F0959353512445358&domain=pdf&date_stamp=2012-05-07
been made, ‘the statistics on overweight and obesity have steadily headed in the wrong direction’ (Office of the Surgeon General, 2001: XIII, emphasis mine). Further, some researchers have suggested that dieting actually succeeds at only one thing: making people fatter, as individuals tend to regain lost weight plus more (Mann et al., 2007; Wooley and Garner, 1991). Thus, it could be argued that one of the myriad factors leading to the rise in obesity is discourse around the obesity epidemic itself.
As Rabinow (1996) and others have argued, the proliferation of biomedical discourse about the body has had the productive effect of inspiring the formation of identity-based organizations and communities. The entanglement of fat embodi- ment and subjectivity has opened up the possibility of, in Foucaultian terms, a ‘counter discourse’(Tremain, 2006) in which fat individuals begin to challenge com- monly held notions of fatness and offer counter-narratives of their bodies. Moreover, the collective process of resignifying the fat body in positive terms fur- ther entwines fatness with notions of the self as activists take on ‘Fat’ as an identity. Thus, in an ironic sense, it is possible to see that the heightened attention to obesity and the wars waged against it have helped bring into being not only increased fatness, but an oppositional fat politics and fat identity.
In this article I argue that those of us engaged in fat politics3 must look carefully at the tactics and strategies we choose precisely because the movement is helping to produce ‘Fat’ as a mode of subjectification, identification and collectivity. Fat activist appeals that are predicated on the argument that fatness is a normal part of human variation, and that individuals can be fit, healthy and fat, can be an effective strategy for fighting anti-fat stigma in some instances. However, I argue that ultimately they will prove costly. Such a framing threatens to leave behind those individuals whose fatness can be directly linked to behavior and who are therefore least able or willing to measure up to ‘normal.’ I suggest that, because identity-based politics necessary excludes at the same time that it consolidates (Kelly, 2002), fat politics may be better framed in terms of what we desire rather than who we are. Fat politics would thus do well to follow a feminist disability politics that troubles and politicizes ‘ideological concepts such as health, disease, normalcy, cure, and treatment’ (Garland-Thomson, 2006: 1560). To this end, I hold that stronger, more purposeful alliances with disability struggles may help fat activism develop a more critical politics of embodiment and more effective challenges to healthism. Finally, I review the strengths and weaknesses of fat political resistance based on transgression and I suggest that Eli Clare’s (2002: para. 13) notion of the ‘ordinary and familiar’ may serve as a stronger, more critical framework for resistance.
A (very) brief genealogy of normal: From the grotesque to the average
The concepts of norm or normal can be dated as coming into European conscious- ness between 1840 and 1860, replacing notions of the godly ideal and the grotesque or common, which characterized mortal life (Davis, 2006;
Meleo-Erwin 389
Garland-Thomson, 2006). The advent of statistics in the late 18th century, first a form of population-level governance and later a means by which to understand health and disease, gave credence to utilizing notions of the norm and normal as a means by which to understand the social world. The work of 19th century Belgian statistician Adolphe Quetelet helped to shift the conceptualization of a norm, as applied to both the variance in human features and moral characteristics, from that which signifies an ‘average’ in a normal distribution curve to that which represents the proper way of life (Davis, 2006). Sir Francis Galton, a noted eugenicist, extended this trend by dividing the normal distribution curve into quartiles allow- ing human traits to be conceived of as prized within a system of ranking rather than errors that fell at the extreme of one end of the curve (Davis, 2006). Because the notion of a norm or normal requires a conceptualization of its opposite, the ‘patho- logical,’ for full coherence (Canguilhem, 1991), what Galton’s work therefore helped to accomplish was the creation of a statistical ideal for the body and the simultaneous creation of its opposite—the deviant body (Davis, 2006). Although these are at best key moments in the genealogy of the ‘normal’ and the ‘patho- logical’ as applied to bodies and populations, what this brief review should make clear is that rather than being self-evident, normal has ‘a history, a set of invest- ments, an entire array of supports and assumptions that bring it into being, sustain it and alter it when conditions so demand’ (Tremain, 2008: XV).
Calculating normal: The disciplinary and productive effects of definition
Within a system of biopower, in which the focus of governance is on the health and vitality of the population, normalization operates through practices of division, classification, ordering and identification (Foucault, 1990; Tremain, 2006). A bio- political regime thus requires a system of measurements that allow for intervention at a mass level. With regard to weight, Jutel (2006: 2272) highlights the importance of population-level statistics in constructing the fat body as pathological:
With the ability to quantify corpulence comes the potential to track its distribution,
prevalence and correlates. In turn, this allows a description of normality and a delin-
eation of the bounds of normal build, which subsequently naturalizes concepts of
difference and deviance.
For medical and public health officials, the division between normal and patho- logical bodily states of fatness or thinness can be measured and calculated through the Body Mass Index (BMI). Today, a BMI between 18.5 and 24.9 defines a normal body weight and a BMI of 25 and above designates overweight and obese bodies. Dieting, exercise, weight loss medications and weight loss surgery are held in med- ical, public health and popular spheres as the sensible means to achieve both a healthy and visually normal body.
The belief in and strategy of normalizing those whose bodies are defined as physically and socially pathological is certainly not limited to the fat.
390 Feminism & Psychology 22(3)
Disability theorists and activists, for example, have extensively documented the cruelties inflicted upon those with cognitive, physical and psychiatric disabilities in the name of normalization (e.g. Braddock and Parish, 2001; Branson and Miller, 2002; Hubbard, 2006; Russell, 1998; Switzer, 2003). Scholars writing on disability from a Foucaultian perspective (e.g. Tremain 2006, 2008) have argued that increas- ingly bodily norms operate not in top-down/oppressor-oppressed terms but rather as disciplinary and productive forces that shape both social reception and self- subjectification. Tremain (2008: 8; emphasis in original) explains,
Despite the fact that power appears to be merely repressive, the most effective exercise
of power, according to Foucault, consists in guiding the possibilities of conduct and
putting into order the possible outcomes. The concealment of these practices, these
limits of possible conduct, allows for the discursive formation in which they circulate
to become naturalized and legitimized. That is to say, the production of these seeming
acts of choice (these limits of possible conduct) on the everyday level of the subject
makes possible the consolidation of more hegemonic structures.
In this sense, rather than through techniques of overt coercion, in contemporary Western societies people are primarily disciplined and regulated through their active engagement with recommended practices and techniques designed to nor- malize their behavior, selves and bodies. The idea of normality becomes a tech- nique of power through which individuals are not only categorized and identified but categorize and identify themselves in ways that make them more governable (Tremain, 2008).
The seduction of normal: Re/drawing borders and boundaries
Under a biopolitical system overt forms of control do not entirely disappear, how- ever, and individuals who ‘fail to comply’ with recommended practices are labeled as deviant and are subject to increased practice of surveillance, intervention and isolation (Petersen, 2003). Identity-based activism has historically allowed such individuals to find connection with similarly situated others; opened up the possi- bility for reclamation of deviant identifications, counter discourse and practices; and has provided a vehicle for political organizing that has resulted in tangible social change. These are undeniable benefits of this form of political organizing. Yet, as Kelly (2002) notes, identity-based movements for social change have also had important drawbacks. First, he states, identity is by its nature restrictive. That is, the very process of consolidating who ‘we’ are paradoxically becomes a simul- taneous process of exclusion. Any attempt to define a space, group or movement as by and for a particular set of individuals immediately opens up a related set of issues around legitimacy – who has the right to be there and who has the right to speak? Second, although reclaiming marginalized identities has clear utility for community organizing, Kelly suggests that this process also risks reifying, and solidifying as natural, categories which are ultimately historical and social and that have been used in the service of injustice. Finally, the strategies of
Meleo-Erwin 391
identity-based movements are often designed around making what Goffman (1986) termed a ‘spoiled identity’ more palatable to the mainstream world by attempting to redefine it under the banner of normal.
Speaking particularly about the limits of seeking mainstream acceptance and assimilation for disability movements, Kelly states,
Generally speaking, our response has been to minimize the effects of our impairments
upon our lives, emphasize our similarities to the general population, and focus on
removing societal barriers to the expression of our abilities. If these barriers are
removed, many people believe[d], we would become normal. (2002: para. 13)
The problem with this strategy, he argues, is not only that it is unlikely to succeed but that it also leaves behind those most unable or unwilling to assimilate into mainstream culture. Warner (1999) locates this tendency toward what Goffman (1986) called ‘in group purification,’ (or the process by which individuals within a stigmatized group attempt to not only ‘‘normify’’ their own behavior but to bring the behavior of others within the group into line), in a politics of shame. Thus, shame, as a disciplinary technique, is expressly political in that transgressors become subject to increased intra-group and inter-group surveillance and interven- tion for their ‘failure’ to bring their bodies and behavior in line with such normative ideals (Petersen, 2003; Warner, 1999).
Disrupting normal: Beyond assimilationist fat politics
With specific regard to fat politics, fat activists might take heed of Kelly’s (2002) warning when we frame our responses to the often-held assertion that fatness is a cause of ill health. Amongst many fat activists there is a tendency to challenge fat- phobia by asserting that one’s own fatness is neither due to poor eating habits nor a lack of exercise and to then highlight the ways in which one engages in a ‘proper’ diet and physical activity (Daniels and Meleo-Erwin, forthcoming). Examples of this form of argument abound on the internet, however one prime example can be seen in Joy Nash’s4 well-known 2007 YouTube video ‘Fat Rant,’ which as of June 2011 garnered well over 1,640,000 views. In the video, Nash portrays a number of characters that express anti-fat sentiments and then appears seemingly as her authentic self, speaking back to these characters and addressing the camera. Throughout the video, Nash confronts and disrupts commonly held stereotypes about fatness and fat people. However, at approximately one minute and twenty seconds in, she appears as what we recognize immediately to be a fat stereotype. She sits on a couch, wearing worn sweatpants and a disheveled wig, and alternately drinks soda from a two liter bottle and pushes fistfuls of a pastry into her mouth. A large bag of Doritos sits opened on a cluttered coffee table in front of her. We then hear Nash’s voiceover:
Now America’s in the midst of this ‘obesity epidemic;’ I’m sure you’ve heard of it. I’m
not saying that’s not true. I’m not saying we should all be sitting around patting
392 Feminism & Psychology 22(3)
ourselves on the back, cramming ourselves full of junk food with our sweatpants
stapled to the sofa. (Nash, 2007)
Following this statement, the ‘true’ Nash appears next to this character. This Nash is well coifed and wears form fitting jeans and a sweater. She says: ‘Obviously diet and exercise are vital. I am saying that if you do those things – eat right and exercise – and you still aren’t thin, your life is not over’ [emphasis is Nash’s].
This argument – that one can be fit, healthy and still fat – seems, at first, to make perfect sense as strategy to combat fat phobia. However, there is an important difference between the Health At Every Size (HAES) model5 of encouraging all individuals to adopt behaviors based on health and well-being rather than weight loss per se (see Bacon et al., 2005) and assertions like Nash’s. The rhetorical effect of Nash’s argument and others like it is to justify and naturalize certain forms of fatness by tying them to ‘proper’ behavior. Yet, in doing so, those whose fatness can be more directly attributed to ‘bad behaviors’ – namely a lack of physical activity and/or to particular eating habits – are inadvertently demonized. And arguably, these are perhaps the very people that fat activism should most benefit and represent. Given this, LeBesco (2004, 2010) warns against basing any argument for fat rights on the purity of our actions and the ‘innocence’ of our fat. Such appeals become dependent upon the pathologization of other fat people and effect- ively extend the reach of the very moralizing, healthist discourse that fat activism should challenge (LeBesco, 2010).6
LeBesco (2010) encourages those engaged in fat politics to think critically about the increasing entanglement of health, morality and proper citizenship while being careful not to glibly dismiss desires for ‘good health’ and concerns over illness and disease. But how can we address concerns about the linkages between weight, health and behavior for ourselves and for others without creating a binary division between ‘good fatties’ and ‘bad fatties’?7 In her work on disability, governmentality and subjectivity, Tremain (2006: 194) argues that basing social movements on identity opens them up to ‘criticisms from an ever-increasing number of constitu- encies that feel excluded from and refuse to identify with those demands for rights and recognition; in addition, minorities internal to the movement will predictably pose challenges to it’. She therefore suggests that such movements should focus less on making identity-based appeals and more on making appeals for what is desired.
Following Tremain (2006), I argue that rather than basing fat politics on the assertion of ‘proper’ health behavior, thereby defining fat activism as inclusive only of those who are most palatable to and reflective of the mainstream world, fat politics should take as a core mission the troubling of normative ideas and ideals of health themselves and argue for a more complex, multidimensional and nuanced framing. I suggest that a stronger, more purposeful alliance between fat and dis- ability movements can shift the focus of fat politics more fully on to the ways in which concepts such as health, illness, normalcy, pathology and cure are ideo- logical in nature (Garland-Thomson, 2006) and examine how they ‘function both as norms and as practices of regulation and control’ (Shildrick and Price, 1996). In doing so, fat activists could continue to suggest that fat bodies are a form of
Meleo-Erwin 393
human variation; that dieting does not produce long-term weight loss, and that it may itself cause both physiological and psychological harm, while also agreeing that the complex and still contentious relationship between weight, health and impairment might mean that, as a population, fat people make greater demands on health care systems but that this fact should not serve as justification for the denial of care, services or rights to fat individuals.
Unsettling normal: Linking fat and disability politics
Disability and fat studies scholars are increasingly making linkages between fatness and disability (see Aphramor, 2009; Cooper, 1997; Garland-Thomson, 2006; Herndon, 2002). Herndon (2002), for example, suggests that there are important connections between the social construction and social reception of fat and dis- abled bodies. Garland-Thomson holds that feminist disability studies must con- sider ‘appearance impairments’ (2006: 1560), or those bodies that are not classically considered disabled. To this end, she states: ‘Perhaps the most common bodily form vehemently imagined as failed or incorrect is the fat body’ (2006: 1581). Fat studies scholars Aphramor (2010) and Cooper (1997) have specifically asked the question, ‘does fatness belong under the umbrella of disability?’
For my purposes here, I would like to focus on the argument made by disability scholars such as Hahn (1988), Herndon (2002) and McRuer (2006) that bodies of disabled people elicit great anxiety through the disruption of norms about how bodies are supposed to look and how they are supposed to function. I suggest that their arguments should be extended to fat bodies as well. I argue that both fatness and disability unsettle the belief in the fixity of the body and point to its fluidity (McRuer, 2006). Further, under a system of neoliberalism in which individuals are believed to have a personal and national responsibility for maintaining their own health, particularly acting preemptively to ward off that for which they might be at risk8 (Rose, 2006), differently bodied individuals remind us that ultimately this is a losing battle. The anxiety produced by the constant resedimentation of bodily normativity requires non-normative bodies to shore up its categories (Garland- Thomson, 1997; McRuer, 2006).
Yet it is worth noting that the concept of ‘normal’ is also malleable and can change when conditions demand this (Tremain 2008). Thus it is possible that a fat politics that seeks mainstream acceptance as its goal can and will produce substan- tive material benefit for some people and that fat bodies may help to reduce stigma. Further, it is understandable that some strands of fat activism should want to pursue what can be seen as an assimilationist strategy of bringing fat bodies under the banner of normal. For ‘normal’ is a seductive, if not compulsory, cat- egory, particularly for those of us who find ourselves relegated to the repulsed and detestable state of pathology. As Parens (2006) has commented, the desire to be normal is the desire for recognition, community, respect and love. Given this, it is difficult if not troublesome to chastise those who seek assimilation either on the bodily level through normalizing surgeries and practices or on the collective level as the end point of fat politics.
394 Feminism & Psychology 22(3)
Nevertheless, Kelly (2002) warns that political movements that make a goal of assimilation are not without cost, noting that normality demands ‘we hide our disreputable differences if we are to be granted even quasi admission into the majority culture.’ He continues by stating that, in being lured by the possibility of inclusion, we are ‘seduced into denying our own experience, thereby leaving behind [those] who least measure up, normally speaking.’ Warner (1999) argues that the effect of leaving behind those who are least able, or least willing, to seek normalization is a weakening of the movement itself; we are haunted by this ambivalence and these contradictions. Further, because the social meanings attached to fatness are necessarily entwined with systems of gender, race, class and disability (Garland-Thomson, 2006; Herndon, 2005), by distancing ourselves from those who least approximate normalcy we may reinscribe existing hierarchical relations of power. Finally, we may miss the opportunity to work with others from whom we have much to learn (Warner, 1999).
Queering normal: The strengths and limitations of a politics of the grotesque
Both Warner (1999) and Kelly (2002) suggest that the notion of ‘queer’ moves us outside the politics of shame and toward a praxis that neither denies the compli- cated messiness of the body nor redefines these characteristics as normal as a strategy of stigma-management. By resisting the naturalness of sexuality and gender, queer theory calls into question the legitimacy of all identity labels, expos- ing the identity’s historically contingent and socially constructed nature. Challenging the goal of including fatness within the category of normal, some fat activists are embracing this queer ethos in their work.
In 2006, I attended a workshop entitled Gruesome: Anti-Assimilationist Fat Aesthetics at NOLOSE, a US-based conference for fat queer and transgender indi- viduals. The workshop was led by San Francisco Bay Area activists Amanda Piasecki and Max Airborne. Speaking about the intent behind and impact of the workshop, Piasecki (personal correspondence, 2008) stated,
In this workshop, participants talked about the value of inhabiting our fat bodies as
freaks rather than as pretty-and-mild-as-possible apologists for our stigmatized flesh.
We explored what it means to be aggressively-embodied fat people, and how to
manage the fears and projections of society at large and their manifestations in popu-
lar culture, and what it means to represent disease and death to American culture . . .
Participants explored our emotional responses to our failure to assimilate and relative
outsider statuses, which resulted in amazing personal catharsis. Ultimately, the stark
inability of fat queer bodies to fit into narrow American monocultural ideals is spawn-
ing a vibrant and vital new organism that is fed by the drive to transform our col-
lective shame.
While the structural oppression related to occupying a non-normative body cannot be denied, a queer reading of ‘freakery’,9 as suggested by Piasecki, might
Meleo-Erwin 395
suggest that for differently bodied individuals such as those who are fat, performing ‘normal’—in general trying to assimilate—can also be exhausting. Thus a ‘queer’ fat activism offers us a way to crack open the concept of normal and trouble it in order to see what relations of power it acts in the service of. Using a Foucaultian lens, we might argue that performances of freakery, or ‘gruesome,’ provide alter- nate understandings of social reality and help to forge alternate communities and that this constitutes a micropolitics of resistance. Similarly, Pitts (1998), drawing upon Bahktin, suggests that the ‘grotesque’ body, the body that is not free of messiness or ambiguity, invites a space of liminality. This liminality, she argues, can act in the service of transgression and subversion for those who engage in norm-transgressing bodily practices. Further, such practices not only destabilize mainstream representations of the body but make whole the body and self, reliev- ing a sense of bodily estrangement.
However, such praxis may be both limited and limiting as well (Pitts, 1998). Firstly, Pitts (1998: 81) notes, ‘in subversion, the normative categories cannot be permanently dispersed; their remains are necessary for the purposes of juxtaposition and inversion.’ Thus transgressive practices depend on a certain finitude. Second, the resistance offered by such transgression remains symbolic and does not necessarily translate to the objective, material level. Finally, she argues that even marginal and transgressive representations of the body can nevertheless be commodified and Othered. Similarly, Bordo (1992) states that performance theories make sense as long as we read subversion simply as ‘text.’ Yet when we try to ground this in actual social life, things get murkier. To this end, Richardson (1996: 8) argues that
to suggest that we can effect social change through (queer) performances, however
transgressive, provocative or challenging, would seem to assume, amongst other
things, that such performances will have a revolutionary effect on (straight) audiences,
rather than being interpreted as imitating and reproducing heterosexuality.
In this sense, notions of political resistance based on transgression are shaped by both the actual context in which such transgressions take place and the possibility of different readers’ responses. Notably, in Piasecki and Airborne’s workshop, one participant argued that as a biracial, Afro-Caribbean, genderqueer fat person, it didn’t matter if she was heavily tattooed or wearing a Brooks Brothers’ suit – either way she would be read ‘gruesome’ given the confluence of her identity markers. As this participant makes clear, our ability to be read and experienced as transgressive is always circumscribed by circumstance and social location and the consequences for transgression may be more severe for some than for others, opening up some bodies to greater surveillance, isolation and intervention.
Writing from a feminist disability studies perspective, Garland-Thomson (2006: 261) also challenges the conceptualization of gruesome or grotesque as transgressive, noting that such work:
seldom acknowledges that these [grotesque] figures often refer to the actual bodies of
people with disabilities. Erasing real disabled bodies from the history of these terms
396 Feminism & Psychology 22(3)
compromises the very critique they intend to launch and misses the opportunity to use
disability as a feminist critical category.
Similarly, Siebers (2006) argues that apprehending bodily difference solely in terms of a performance or social constructionist framework is limited in that these approaches are unable to account for the embodied pain and difficult physical realities that many people with disabilities face. Despite these very real limitations of models of social change based on transgression and performativity, non- normative body practices can be transformative for many who engage in them (personal correspondence with Piasecki, 2008; Pitts, 1998). Used critically, they might be one strategy amongst many deployed in a critical fat politics of resistance.
‘Ordinary and familiar:’ A critical politics of resistance
In his keynote address for the 2002 Queer Disability Conference in San Francisco,10Eli Clare (para. 12) stated, ‘we’re good at saying the word pride, as if shame has nothing to do with it. And I’m glad we’ve become good at those things, but let us not stop talking about our bodies, about the messiness and contradictions.’ Making space for such complex narratives allows us to conceive of our bodies, our lives and of ourselves as ‘ordinary and familiar,’ and this is not only relieving, Clare argues, but pleasurable. Clare draws a sharp distinction between ‘ordinary and familiar’ and normal:
Don’t mistake me: I don’t mean we need to find normal and make it our own.
Normal—that center against which every one of us is judged and compared: in
truth I want us to smash it to smithereens. And in its place, celebrate our irrevocably
different bodies, our queerness, our crip lives, telling stories and creating for ourselves
an abiding sense of the ordinary and the familiar. (para. 23)
Here Clare seems to bring together both the subversive challenge of ‘queer’ and an acknowledgment of the complex, embodied, material reality of being differently bodied.
Following Clare, a politics of the ordinary and familiar not only opens up space for celebration and pleasure, but it makes room for pain, struggle and even shame. Making room for that which can be challenging to admit to fellow activists, let alone to outsiders, disrupts the silence and shame that undergird a politics based on normative assimilation. As well, a politics of the ordinary and familiar moves us outside of false, binary choices of reclamation and celebration or shame and nor- malization. And by doing so, room is made for contradictory and multiple stories which, in turn, allows for both a more complex ethos of embodiment and a more inclusive politics of resistance.
Of course, it is easier to gesture at what a politics based on the ordinary and familiar would look like than demonstrate instances of it in action. However, the New York City based political discussion group The Queer Commons (2011) seems to have embraced an ethos of the ordinary and familiar in their April 2011 event,
Meleo-Erwin 397
‘The Right to Be Ill: Queer Hedonism and Policing Health.’11 In their organizing materials for the event that were circulated on numerous New York City queer activist listservs and posted on Facebook,12 The Queer Commons organizers asked:
What are the ways our body and desires are being regulated by the health imperative?
Is the need to always be striving for health masking a new morality? Why is my health
a cause of concern for anyone other than me? Who is the ‘public’ in public health . . .?
What are people doing for you – or to you – when they say they are ‘concerned
about your health?’ When we make a health decision, are we thinking about
how our bodies feel or how we should act in others’ eyes? Can the bodies of ‘the
unhealthy’ – the fat, disabled, HIV+, ill, crazy, elderly – ever be fixed? Or what are
the radical possibilities of accepting a (your!) body’s brokenness? What if desire and
pleasure were a part of our understanding of what allows us to feel healthy? What if
we understood health as something that is only knowable to the individual and is not
legible on the body?
The event, attended by approximately 35 individuals, covered a broad range of topics, including health, illness, morality, disability, fatness and sexuality, and made linkages between them. For my purposes here, I take note of the fact that some attendees discussed the difficulties of maintaining a fat positive attitude in the face of illness and impairment. Others acknowledged the challenges of avoiding the ‘good fattie/bad fattie’ trap within fat politics. In response, a thin, disability rights activist in attendance questioned the idea that a fat body with an impairment was somehow not worth living and was somehow inferior to a fat and healthy body.
In this discussion and others that evening, The Queer Commons organizers invited attendees to tell their stories of embodiment, welcoming in contradiction, shame, celebration, reclamation and ambivalence. As well, they invited attendees to collectively trouble and disrupt categories of autonomy, control, self-determination and proper citizenship that bodies such as those of ‘the fat, disabled, HIV+, ill, crazy, elderly’ pose. It is my hope that events such as ‘The Right to Be Ill: Queer Hedonism and Policing Health,’ have the potential to help shift the focus of fat politics beyond that which, paraphrasing Kelly (2002) and Warner (1999), requires us to minimize the full range of our embodied experiences, emphasize our simila- rities to a normative mode of embodiment and selfhood, and pressures us to bring the behavior of others within the group into line as a means by which to gain mainstream inclusion.
There is no getting outside of the entanglement of relations of power and sub- jectification. Given this, it is necessary for those engaged in fat politics to look critically at the practices that we take up as a challenge to fat-phobia. These very practices become, in their own way, constitutive elements not only of the self but of our movement. Following Clare (2002) and The Queer Commons, I suggest that a resistance to and disruption of the normal – ‘that center against which every one of us is judged and compared’ (Clare 2002: para. 23) – makes space for a more fully embodied means of opposition, a more critical form of identification and a more inclusive mode of organizing.
398 Feminism & Psychology 22(3)
Acknowledgments
I am extremely grateful to Dr Barbara Katz Rothman for her comments on a previous version of this article. As well, I would like to thank the two anonymous reviewers who offered very helpful comments on an earlier draft of this article.
Notes
1. While this paper focuses on the American context, the increase in discourse around obesity as epidemic is without a doubt a global phenomenon. For example, the
World Health Organization defines obesity as an abnormal accumulation of fat on the body, links obesity with increased risk of disease and identifies obesity as a condition increasingly affecting low and middle-income countries (see http://www.who.int/topics/ obesity/en/). Moreover, a recent report on anti-fat stigma finds evidence for increasing
global acceptance of the Western framing of fat as disease state and as socially undesir- able, and as an effect of individual-level behaviors and choices, even amongst those cultures that have traditionally been fat-positive (Brewis et al., 2011).
2. In December of 2001, then Surgeon General David Satcher announced America’s ‘war on obesity’ to the press. In order to best wage war on fat, Satcher and former Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy G Thompson suggested that as their patriotic duty,
all Americans should lose 10 pounds (Herndon, 2005). 3. In this work, I use ‘fat politics’ specifically to refer to political organizing by fat activists
and their allies. As well my focus here is on the United States. Of course, fat activism is
not a coherent social movement, per se, and rather can be seen as the diverse collection of activist groups, organizations, events, clubs, researchers, websites, internet forums, legal actions, bloggers, zine makers, amongst others, that at a very minimum agree upon the need to challenge anti-fat bias and stereotypes. The academic discipline of fat studies
is also entwined with fat activism, as Cooper (2010) has recently noted. 4. Nash’s fat politics, particularly where health is concerned, are undoubtedly more
nuanced and critical than what she expresses in this video. Nevertheless, in Fat Rant
#1, Nash does portray size acceptance in what can be seen as good fattie/bad fattie terms.
5. The HAES model has itself been criticized for inadvertently extending healthism. For
example, see: http://www.fatnutritionist.com/index.php/the-obligation-to-be-healthy-at- every-size/.
6. It is worth noting that this ‘good fattie/bad fattie’ framework has been well critiqued by the ‘fatosphere,’ or the range of blogs and online forums devoted to challenging stereo-
types of fat people and to fighting fat phobia (see Kinzel, 2008; Stuart, 2011). 7. This question is not unlike the one that HIV/AIDs activists, particularly in the early
years of the epidemic, had to address critically given that those who acquired HIV
through sexual intercourse or drug use were demonized in ways that those who acquired it through transfusions and other less stigmatized means were not. See Rollins (2004).
8. While normality is a technique of power through which individuals make decisions that
make them more governable in the present, risk is a normalizing technique ‘aimed at governing (managing and controlling) the future’ (Waldschmidt, 2008: 197).
9. It is important to note that reclaiming the word ‘freak’ is contested within disability
studies given the history of the early 20th century freak show (Bogdan, 1996; Garland- Thomson, 1996; Gerber, 1996).
10. Clare’s keynote address was posted to the conference website after the event was over. The closing plenary timeslot was used to hold a community meeting to address
Meleo-Erwin 399
unfinished conference business and thus Clare did not actually give the keynote address at the conference itself.
11. Based on the success of the event, one of the event’s organizers facilitated a similar workshop entitled: ‘Justify My Fat: Disentangling Health and Morality in Fatlandia and Beyond’ at the July 2011 NOLOSE conference.
12. See https://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid¼177624775618675.
References
Aphramor L (2009) Disability and the anti-obesity offensive. Disability & Society 24(7): 897–909.
Bacon L, VanLoan M, Stern JS and Keim N (2005) Size acceptance and intuitive eating
improves health for obese chronic dieters. Journal of the American Dietetic Association 105(6): 929–936.
Bogdan R (1996) The social construction of freaks. Freakery: Cultural Spectacles of the
Extraordinary Bodies. New York: New York University Press. Bordo S (1992) Postmodern subjects, postmodern bodies. Feminist Studies 18(1): 159–168. Braddock D and Parish SL (2001) An institutional history of disability. In: Albrecht GL,
Seelman KD and Bury M (eds) Handbook of Disability Studies. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Branson J and Miller D (2002) Damned for Their Difference: The Cultural Construction of
Deaf People as Disabled. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press. Brewis AA, Wutich A, Falletta-Cowden A, et al. (2011) Body norms and fat stigma in global
perspective. Current Anthropology 52(2): 269–276. Canguilhem G (1991) The Normal and the Pathological. New York: Zone Books.
Clare E (2002) Sex, celebration, and justice: A keynote for QD2002. Available at: http:// www.disabilityhistory.org/dwa/queer/proceedings.html (accessed January 10, 2012).
Cooper C (1997) Can a fat woman call herself disabled? Disability & Society 12(1): 31–41.
Cooper C (2010) Fat studies: Mapping the field. Sociology Compass 4(12): 1020–1034. Daniels J and Meleo-Erwin Z (forthcoming) YouTube bodies: An Analysis of user-
generated videos about weight loss, ‘thinspo,’ and fat acceptance.
Davis L (2006) Constructing normalcy: The bell curve, the novel and the invention of the disabled body in the nineteenth century. In: Davis L (ed.) The Disability Studies Reader. New York: Routledge.
Foucault M (1990) The History of Sexuality: An Introduction. New York: Vintage.
Garland-Thomson R (1996) From wonder to error: A genealogy of freak discourse in mod- ernity. In: Garland-Thomson R (ed.) Freakery: Cultural Spectacles of the Extraordinary Bodies. New York: New York University Press.
Garland-Thomson R (1997) Extraordinary Bodies: Figuring Physical Disability in American Culture and Literature. New York: Columbia University Press.
Garland-Thomson R (2006) Integrating disability, transforming feminist theory. In: Davis L
(ed.) The Disability Studies Reader. New York: Routledge. Gerber DA (1996) The ‘careers’ of people exhibited in freak shows: The problems of volition
and valorization. In: Garland-Thomson R (ed.) Freakery: Cultural Spectacles of the
Extraordinary Bodies. New York: New York University Press. Goffman E (1986) Stigma: Notes on the Management of Spoiled Identity. New York: Simon
& Schuster. Hahn H (1988) The politics of physical differences: Disability and discrimination. Journal of
Social Issues 44(1): 39–47.
400 Feminism & Psychology 22(3)
Herndon A (2002) Disparate but disabled: Fat embodiment and disability studies. NWSA Journal 14(3): 120–137.
Herndon A (2005) Collateral damage from friendly fire? Race, nation and class and the ‘war against obesity’. Social Semiotics 15(2): 128–141.
Hubbard R (2006) Abortion and disability: Who should and who should not inhabit the world? In: Davis L (ed.) The Disability Studies Reader. New York: Routledge.
Jutel A (2006) The emergence of overweight as a disease entity: Measuring up normality. Social Science & Medicine 63(9): 2268–2276.
Kelly JB (2002) Your sexuality, your body, get over it! The liberatory ethic of queer and
disability theory. Available at: http://www.disabilityhistory.org/dwa/queer/paper_kelly .html (accessed January 10, 2012).
Kinzel L (2008) Embracing the morbid. Available at: http://blog.twowholecakes.com/2008/
11/embracing-the-morbid/ (accessed June 23, 2011). LeBesco K (2004) Revolting Bodies: The Struggle to Redefine Fat Identity. Boston, MA:
University of Massachusetts Press.
LeBesco K (2010) Fat panic and the new morality. In: Metzel J and Kirkland A (eds) Against Health: How Health Became the New Morality. New York: New York University Press.
McRuer R (2006) Compulsory able-bodiedness and queer/disabled existence. Crip Theory:
Cultural Signs of Queerness and Disability. New York: New York University Press. Mann T, Tomiyama AJ, Westling E, et al. (2007) Medicare’s search for effective obesity
treatments: Diets are not the answer. American Psychologist 62(3): 220–233.
Nash J (2007) Fat rant. Available at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v¼yUTJQIBI1oA (accessed June 29, 2011).
Office of the Surgeon General (2001) Surgeon general’s call to action to prevent and decrease
overweight and obesity. Available at: http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/topics/obesity/ index.htm (accessed October 22, 2010).
Parens E (2006) Introduction: Thinking about surgically shaping children. In: Parens E (ed.) Surgically Shaping Children: Technology, Ethics, and the Pursuit of Normality. Baltimore,
MD: Johns Hopkins University Press. Petersen A (2003) Governmentality, critical scholarship, and the medical humanities.
Journal of Medical Humanities 24(3/4): 187–201.
Pitts V (1998) ‘Reclaiming’ the female body: Embodied identity work, resistance and the grotesque. Body & Society 4(3): 67–84.
Queer Commons (2011) The right to be ill: Queer hedonism and policing health. Available
at: https://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid¼177624775618675 (accessed June 29, 2011).
Rabinow P (1996) Essays on the Anthropology of Reason. Princeton, NJ: Princeton
University Press. Richardson D (1996) Heterosexuality and social theory. In: Richardson D (ed.) Theorising
Heterosexuality. Buckingham: Open University Press. Rollins J (2004) AIDS and the Sexuality of Law. New York: Palgrave.
Rose N (2006) The Politics of Life Itself: Biomedicine, Power and Subjectivity in the Twenty- First Century. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Russell M (1998) Beyond Ramps: Disability at the End of the Social Contract. Monroe, LA:
Common Courage Press. Shildrick M and Price J (1996) Breaking the boundaries of the broken body. Body and
Society 2(4): 93–113.
Meleo-Erwin 401
Siebers T (2006) Disability in theory: From social constructionism to the new realism of the body. In: Davis L (ed.) The Disability Studies Reader. New York: Routledge.
Stuart B (2011) ‘Good fatties’ is not a self definition. Available at: http://red3.blogspot.com/ 2011/04/good-fatties-is-not-self-definition.html (accessed June 23, 2011).
Switzer JV (2003) Disabled Rights: American Disability Policy and the Fight for Equality. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
Tremain S (2006) On the government o disability: Foucault, power, and the subject of impairment. In: Davis L (ed.) The Disability Studies Reader. New York: Routledge.
Tremain S (2008) Foucault, governmentality, and critical disability theory: An introduction.
In: Tremain S (ed.) Foucault and the Government of Disability. Michigan, MI: University of Michigan Press.
Waldschmidt A (2008) Who is normal? Who is deviant? ‘Normality’ and ‘risk’ in genetic
diagnosis and counseling. In: Tremain S (ed.) Foucault and the Government of Disability. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
Warner M (1999) The Trouble with Normal: Sex, Politics, and the Ethics of Queer Life.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Wooley SC and Garner DM (1991) Obesity treatment: The high cost of false hope. Journal
of the American Dietetic Association 91(10): 1248–1251.
Zoë Meleo-Erwin is a PhD candidate in Sociology at the City University of New York Graduate Center. She holds a previous MA in Disability Studies from the Graduate Center. Her dissertation research focuses on the biosociality of weight loss surgery and neoliberal discourses around obesity. Her previous publi- cations appear in The Cultural Encyclopedia of the Body, (Greenwood, 2008; Pitts-Taylor V, ed.), Health: An Interdisciplinary Journal for the Social Study of Health, Illness and Medicine and International Review of Qualitative Research.
402 Feminism & Psychology 22(3)
