Language of body dissatisfaction as viewed by a nitpicker of connotation

[firecat]

I was reading the following in Business Week the other day:
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/11_04/b4212078649987.htm
"Book Review: American Plastic: Boob Jobs, Credit Cards, and Our Quest for Perfection" by June Thomas (the book reviewed is by Laurie Essig)

I was struck by the following phrase in the review:
"Splurging on a tummy tuck might actually be a sensible survival instinct."

At first I was just annoyed by the sloppiness inherent in an economic decision being called an "instinct." Let's not mix our technical jargon, mmmkay? (Later on, the phrase "rational financial decision" is used instead, which I find less sloppy.)

The book being reviewed makes the argument that less wealthy people may be getting cosmetic surgery because they see it as a way of gaining access to wealth. ("30 percent of plastic surgery patients earned less than $30,000 a year.") The author puts it this way:

"Working-class bodies, which tend to be larger and have less access to things like braces for straight teeth or dermatologists for smooth skin, also elicit more disgust than the smooth, pampered bodies of the upper classes."

I was annoyed by two things in that statement:

(1) The notion of "working-class bodies" and "upper-class bodies." There might be trends for people who are working-class to look less conventionally attractive than people who are upper-class, but I would want to see evidence.

(2) The way an opinion is presented as a statement of fact. "Working-class bodies...elicit more disgust."

I believe that specific choices about language use can influence beliefs, and beliefs can influence social reality. I think statements like that create and/or strengthen an opinion about the inherent ugliness of certain bodies, rather than simply reflecting an existing opinion.

(I need a "nitpicking" icon.)

Comments

[jesse_the_k]

Ugh.

I think your current icon is highly appropriate (but not instinctively so).

[firecat]

Hee!

[bcholmes]

Thanks for posting this.

[laughingrat]

Hmm, interesting--I read both of those statements as being about popular opinion, rather than statements of fact. Then again, I do tend to filter things thought my Rat Filters rather than really focusing on the text. (Seriously.) Then again, this is a pretty problematic issue, so maybe the author *should* take more care, precisely because of that.

[lilacsigil]

People living in poverty do tend to be fatter than people with wealth and there is a tremendous amount of classist rhetoric around that - so if the author subscribes to the conventional "thin is healthy/attractive, fat is diseased/ugly", then that would be some evidence. I agree that the phrasing is presented as an unimpeachable fact rather than an opinion, or even a finding. Of course everyone knows that those crooked-toothed acne-scarred fatties are hideous (and it correlates precisely with class)!

[firecat]

There's certainly evidence that a lot of people believe "thin is healthy/attractive, fat is diseased/ugly."

And I know so many people who don't. Sometimes blanket statements are made about cultural beliefs, and that ends up "disappearing" the beliefs of a substantial minority. I sometimes feel resentful about that.

[aquaeri]

I can only interpret that second statement as being about this culture we live in, and for this culture, it is as far as I can tell, absolutely true (and it's likely that it's generally true for a culture that whatever the upper classes look like, that's considered more desirable, human status-seeking being what it is - look at the history of the tan for example).

Whether it's a good thing that it's true that most Western people are disgusted by fat, cheap clothes, and lack of access to luxury medical care, that's a different matter, to me. I'd love to live in a world where most people are more aware of cultural biases and think more carefully about whether they are unthinkingly reinforcing them, but I'm not optimistic.

[firecat]

To me there is an important difference between saying "Working-class bodies...elicit more disgust" and "In many cultures, appearance is an aspect of status."

I also interpret the former statement as being about culture, but I think it's better when such things aren't left to interpretation but are explicitly stated.

Why better? I think it's easier to question and change beliefs when they are expressed as beliefs, in a context. And I think questioning beliefs and changing beliefs that are harmful is good.

[aquaeri]

Well, one of the issues is that it is presumably a single sentence from an entire book, and the entire book seems to be an examination/exposure of a set of beliefs, which to me immediately opens the idea of questioning and changing, which might be a different chapter.

I don't disagree with you that it's better to be explicit about what are beliefs, but as I said, I'm just not optimistic about how long it's going to take before most people think like that.

[aquaeri]

Here, tigtog says the thing I was trying to say, but better (although in the context of gaming and rape jokes, rather than fat and body image).

[kalmn]

i think that in general, the working class elicits more disgust. and that is due to rampant classism. so, if your body looks like you have a trainer who works with you on having sleek muscles but not too many of them, you're read as upper class (well, if you were naked) and if you don't, you're not.


that is my thirty second i have to go take a shower and do some dishes opinion on that. :)

[starcat-jewel.livejournal.com]

Remember that "working class" includes a number of very physically-demanding trades, at least for men -- construction workers, police and firemen come immediately to mind. So there's some genderism in that statement as well.

[firecat]

Yes, and I found it interesting that all the specific examples in the review are of women, but the general language is about "Americans," "people," "individuals."

[kightp.livejournal.com]

I suspect the phrasing, throughout, says something about the writer's class. And, um, lack of class.

[fauxklore]

There's some confusion between cause and effect. There's lots of evidence that the "desirable" body type is the one that is harder for people of limited means to attain. What type that is has, of course, changed through history.

[mjlayman.livejournal.com]

The WashPost has an article from Essig on those things (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/01/06/AR2011010604912.html).

[caprine.livejournal.com]

The upper class seems to be trying to speciate away from the rest of us.

A couple of years ago there was an article in one of the major news media in which the author (male) said that women who spend less than $600/month on beauty maintenance just aren't trying hard enough. I wonder if the existence of people who live on $600/month or less is something of which he is ignorant or which he considers irrelevant.

[jenk]

You are welcome to use this icon if you wish.

[firecat]

Hee!

[dr-brat.livejournal.com]

"No, but 'obsessive-compulsive' does."

[beaq.livejournal.com]

What incredibly sloppy writing.