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

[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).