The War on Fat
By: Sofia Karliner
Tags: Body Positive, Body Image, Health, Eating Disorders, Anthropology

In my final semester of study at Barnard College in New York City, I was faced, for one of the last times, with the impending panic of choosing what to write. I had just ironed out the kinks in my second thesis, scrambled together a lab report, and had a relatively solid portfolio put together for my creative writing class. Far too late, it seemed, I was brainstorming a topic for my remaining project– a paper on terrorism. My professor for the class (an upper level Anthropology course at Columbia, beguilingly labeled “Stockholm Syndrome”), had told us to pick a topic, any topic–and apply our various readings on terror, affect, religion and history to them. The broadness of this assignment inspired an appropriate amount of distress, and I was well into a paper on Artificial Intelligence (the first contemporary, and perhaps too literal “figure” of the uncanny that I could establish as inspiring terror), when a new inspiration struck me.

Well, that is what it felt like at the time, but perhaps “struck” is the wrong word, because, like far too many others, I had been actively thinking about my topic in the back of my head for well over half my life. Subconsciously, perhaps it had been there all along. It all came down to what I felt terrorized me. Terror, as we established in class–is something that strikes through a duality of the known and the unknown. It is recognizing ones-self in the other, without known recourse. It is an abstraction that carries promise of contagion. I knew then, as I know now, what “terror” means to me. It is the same fear that I subconsciously absorbed from my environment as a child, as I watched my mother keep a food log, or enjoyed the millionth teen movie imbued with diet language. It is the same fear that bloomed within me in high school, followed me to college and pushed me to join the school rowing team. And it is the same fear that ultimately placed me in a sixth month treatment program for violent bulimia at the age of 20.

Not too long ago, I discovered a community of body positivity on Instagram. Not the thin white women co-opting the term, but people at the forefront of the movement. They put to words, in language far more radical and far less tailored to a school assignment than mine, the unbelievable stigmatization of fat, and marginalization of fat bodies in contemporary western society, as well as its intersection with phenomena such as race, gender, class and sexuality. It is them that I must thank for the capacity to put the following essay into words. It is also important to note that as a thin woman, my relationship with fat does not include social or political marginalization, and my words on these experiences should be treated as secondhand, rather than lived.

Below, I give you my musings, in a structural and academic context, with the hope that they may provide even the smallest amount of clarity.

Chiara Zarmati for The New York Times “The Dangers of Belly Fat”

Stockholm Syndrome Final Paper: The War on Fat

Fat–a word that holds so much weight, (no pun intended). In the United States as well as in much of the western world we are bombarded by a constant stream of messages: how to burn fat fast; fat-blasting exercises; doctor recommended weight loss surgeries. Stories headline newspapers and magazines: They Called Me Fat! How I Lost The Weight and Got My Life Back, and the perpetual Obesity Epidemic Spreading In America. The language speaks for itself: fat is attacking us, and we must violently eliminate it in order to save our humanity, our lives, our nation. This paper will explore how fat is characterized as a figure of terror. It will use an array of authors to classify fat under the categories of Other, virus and affect, and ultimately demonstrate how positing fat as a form of terror allows for a perpetuation of capitalist profit and tyrannical control.

Fat as Other

The first way that fat is classified in contemporary society is through its intrinsically isolative and othering nature. Not only is fat seen as being an outsider, or an “Other,” but its manifestation on human bodies is accompanied by an othering quality. In his essay “The Uncanny,” Sigmund Freud classifies the Other as uncanny: boasting a duality of what is familiar; heimlich, and unfamiliar; unheimlich. Fat is similarly dual in this way. It is familiar, in that it exists and must exist on our bodies for our survival as a human species, yet for many it is also alien, something that causes aesthetic discomfort, whose appraisal creates a sense of dissonance, as if it does not truly belong on the body. In attempting to define the uncanny, Freud (somewhat unsuccessfully) turns to dictionary definitions of the term “unfamiliar.” The English definition boasts the following: ENGLISH: (from dictionaries by Lucas, Bellow, Flügel, Muret-Sanders). Uncomfortable, uneasy, gloomy, dismal, uncanny, ghastly; (of a house) haunted; (of a man) a repulsive fellow. What is most intriguing is this last aspect of the definition, “(of a man) a repulsive fellow.” In this we see that he who is uncanny or, as Freud classifies these definitions, unfamiliar, becomes contingently repulsive. This unfamiliar Other, in its human manifestation is therefore one that incites disgust. In the case of fat, it is not that fat itself is unfamiliar to us, but we have been trained, through mainstream media and sexual socialization, to treat fat with disgust. Hence the person holding the fat becomes the Other, the cause of discomfort or repulsion, and thus unfamiliar or uncanny to behold.

Similarly, in Tragedy and Philosophy, Walter Kaufman outlines the problem of translatability of categories of tragedy. In looking at the tale of Oedipus, he dissects the greek terms “idios,” meaning pity, and “phobos,” meaning fear. According to Kaufman, these terms were linked in a dichotomous operation in ancient Greece, performing a sort of social function in their call to empathy. Furthermore, in this ancient world, pity was not localized to one individual, but held a collective nature. This collective feeling was further perpetuated in Greek tragedy by a lost pronoun that served a similar purpose to “one.” This “oneness” overflowed the cultural imaginary, linking all of the readers of greek tragedy to the tragedy itself, begging a sentiment of empathic feeling. In contemporary times we stand outside of one another, especially in the United States, which is known for its persistent claim to individuality. What this does is to completely isolate individuals in both their aesthetics and their actions. In seeing fat as an othering quality, we pity those who are it (not have it, as grammar would suggest), who fat has chosen as its vessel of becoming. Michelle Faubert similarly touches upon the fear that the self can become the invading Other, which in relation to fat, manifests in the fear that in gaining fat we will necessarily become it. As fearful individuals we shame those who have been infiltrated: the lack of discipline and the weakness that made them privy to this outside specimen, this quality of Other. This is particularly demonstrated in the mass footage of fat bodies that we see on television and in documentaries when discussing obesity. They become faceless, their heads cut off by the camera or blurred by special effects. They become their fat, no longer individuals, but completely othered and taken over by this force. As a result, we, as observers, do not become them, as the readers of Oedipus are challenged to do. We do not feel with them, understand that they are also us–rather we dismiss and isolate them in fear of the same fate.

Lastly, in terms of the Other, Ileana Porras’ article “On Terrorism: Reflections on Violence and The Outlaw,” outlines how calling someone a terrorist is a call to action and elimination. Our discourse surrounding fat acts in a similar way. All of the language we use to describe fat is othering, while our media outlets and social world perpetuate a furious call to action against it. As hinted in the introduction, words such as “burn” “lose” “shred” and “blast” are paired frequently with “fat” in a call to its elimination. These are also words commonly used in war. Furthermore, Porras discusses the normative bind of how one must denounce terrorism, lest they be seen as a supporter. Just as not adamantly positioning oneself against terrorism could posit them as terrorist, not denouncing fat in our modern-day social world, or even worse, celebrating it, creates a similar dichotomy. Taking a side on fat is equated to taking a side on health. Renouncing fat means that one is pro-health, and vice versa. If you are a fat person who renounces fat, you are still afflicted, but at least you are trying. If you are a fat or thin person celebrating fat, as we are beginning to see in the emergence of the body-positivity movement, you are a danger to society.

Fat as Virus

This brings us to the notion of Fat as Virus. As the previous section touched upon briefly, in contemporary English, one does not have fat, rather one is fat. This language alone points to the role that fat plays in our cultural understanding. Fat is posited as an outside invasion, a disease that takes over and becomes us. In Disciplining Terror: How Experts Invented “Terrorism,” Lisa Stampinsky investigates how the terrorist is spoken about through the trope of disease and pathogen. In her analysis of political and social debates surrounding terrorism she cites Eugene Methvin as claiming that terrorism occurs, “with a frequency as usual and normal in human societies as such other normal human pathologies as alcoholism or suicide.” Here, we see how terrorism is classified as a pathological addiction akin to alcoholism and depression. Not only does Methvin normalize these pathologies, but in relating them to terrorism he posits all three as a disease of human nature. Fat is similarly classified. In our society we view fat as being a pathological disease, something that is taking over, infiltrating our bodies and sickening us.

In Crowds and Power, Elias Canetti discusses the fear of being touched, unless we are in a crowd. This fear of touch relates to the notion of virus, that we can become afflicted by the states of others. A figure of terror, then, can manifest in someone who takes up more space, and is thus more likely to infringe upon one’s personal bubble with their physicality. Thus fat individuals become fearsome subjects. The concept of an “obesity epidemic” contributes to this fear of being touched by fat. It is important to note that one of the greatest health problems the world faces is poor dietary health. This change comes from the globalization of junk food diets, advertising and lifestyles imported from rich western countries. That being said, the word “epidemic” is evocative of a physical disease, spread through touch. Therefore our fear of fat and contingently, fat people, is propagated all the more by the concept that we fear not only their increased capacity for touching us, but the fat on their bodies as viral and epidemic, as if their touch can somehow spread the fat, and accompanying otherness to us.

Faubert, who discussed the fear of Self becoming destroyed by the infiltration of the Other, also elaborates on a fear of inoculation that was prevalent throughout the eighteenth century. Faubert claims that this fear was to a degree a fear of the same infection that one was being inoculated against, due to the fact that vaccinations occasionally caused the spread of disease, rather than its infection. Faubert uses this study to discuss rhetorics of terror: how we fear even small introductions to the world of the Other, lest they turn on us. This lense allows us to look at fat as virus in a new way. As human beings we are informed by science that the cause of fat is food. This is a biological fact, an increase in calories often cause an increase in fat. We do, however, need to eat to survive. What is interesting is that the line between physical survival and social survival is quite thin. One must diet or not eat too much in order to avoid the fate of an othered fat body, but at the same time, eat enough to survive. In this sense, food can be seen as the inoculation–preventing death yet spreading the potential for a type of social death.

Fat as Affect

Finally, we come to the concept of fat as affect, or feeling. What is particularly intriguing about this definition of fat is that fat-as-emotion has been completely ingrained into our social lexicon. In eating disorder treatment centers, one of the main tasks of the staff is to critique the statement: “I feel fat.” The patients must be re-trained to identify their emotions outside of the overarching emotion of “fat” since, clinically, fat is not a feeling. Fat is something that exists on the body, it has even become a descriptor, but it is not officially an emotion. That being said, it has somehow socially become one. In her article “Affective Economies” Sarah Ahmed claims that emotions exist not simply inside or outside of the body, but that they take on a role of boundary creation. According to Ahmed, stating something such as “I have a feeling” exercises ownership over said feeling, and classifies emotions as property, which can then easily transform such emotions into a characteristic or quality. Thinking about the flip side of this, we can see how characteristics or qualities can then easily transform into emotion. The characteristic of fat, and one’s ownership of it creates an affective reaction of shame and fear and anxiety due to its identity as infectious or Other. When one is feeling a particular ownership over their fat, these feelings cluster, and create a large umbrella sentiment: the “emotion” of fat. This manifests in sentiments such as, I’m having a fat day, or I’m feeling fat today. The feeling of fat does not have a single definition, rather it has been delegated as simply a bad emotion of mixed affect. Thus the affect of fat also takes on an othered nature. Its definition is elusive, incomprehensible and invasive.

On the other hand, in A Philosophical Inquiry, Edmund Burke elaborates on how pleasure ties into affective states and desires. Burke claims that the main motivator for society and the propagation of humans is pleasure. Burke defines this pleasure as beauty, while sentiments of terror are classified as the sublime. Beauty is a social construct, and can thus take on many definitions. In contemporary Western society, which is individualistic, beauty is most frequently tied to the individual body. This is of the utmost importance when analyzing the social implications of fat, since our particular brand in America of what is considered aesthetically beautiful in terms of bodies is a lack of fat. What is more, Burke claims that beauty is tied to love, thus thinness becomes love, while fatness becomes a lack of love. In this way, our bodies become the representations of the beauty, love and pleasure in our lives. It is no wonder we collectively spend a fortune transforming and manipulating our bodies in an attempt to attain this beauty. We are terrorized by the prospect of the social death or pain that accompanies the sublimity of its loss. If the pleasure that comes from beauty is our main motivator for survival, and beauty is socially equated to a thin body, then a thin body becomes akin to a full life. This relates well to various aspects of our cultural mythology. For example, the myth that when weight is lost, life can truly begin or that a full life is not possible in a fat body. In America, the aesthetic thinness of our bodies is our happiness, our primary motivator to live.

Lastly, there is the affect of morality that is tied to thinness, and the consequent immorality tied to fat. In his article “Habit as Switchpoint,” Tom Crook expounds upon the notion of habit, and how habit manifests as a subjective tendency, rooted in the mind and body rather than in law. Here, we see how habit is then propagated as the moral responsibility of the individual, rather than the disciplinary responsibility of the state. It is not the state’s responsibility to provide healthy foods and lifestyle choices, but the individual’s responsibility to refrain from the many economically viable and readily available temptations. In looking further at fatness, this framework posits that an individual’s fatness is a reflection of an individual’s morality. John Stuart Mill states that, “A person feels morally free who feels that his habits or his temptations are not his masters, but he theirs; who, even in yielding to them, knows that he could resist them.’ Here, we see how control, and control over habit is equated to morality. Since fatness is so often associated with lack of control or ill health, being fat or having fat is seen as a moral failure, an incapacity to attain moral freedom through resisting the temptation of food or exercising control over it.

It is also important to note that this moral failing helps to propagate notions of classism, and its ultimate intersection with white supremacy. If impoverished families who can only afford to feed their children greasy fast food are fat, they are morally inferior, which creates a subliminal message that the capitalist class system is based on a moral hierarchy of discipline, rather than the luck of the draw. Similarly, white bodies are celebrated almost exclusively in their thinness, whereas Latinx and black culture tend to celebrate more voluptuous figures. When fat=immorality, cultural celebrations of even small amounts of fat perpetuate a white supremacist notion of POC as nonsubscriptive to basic morals, ultimately easing the dissonance that accompanies racial marginalization.

Conclusion: Fat/Profit/Patriarchy

So why has fat been socially situated as a figure of terror in western society? The answer has to do with tyrannical state control; control over race and class, as explored above, control over financial capital and profit, and finally, patriarchal control. In her article “Affective States,” Ann Laura Stoler claims that in order to function properly, political governance must contain within it a governance over the psychological power of emotion. In positing the othering, viral, and necessarily negative consequences of fatness, the tyrant is able to instill a previously non-existent emotion: fat, and thus exercise control over the population. Stoler further posits a justification of the tyrant and their violent acts, for the sake of society–an emotionally predictive society is one that is easily facilitated.

This leads to the profitability of fat as a terrorist figure. A fear of fatness is a call to the production of products that claim to fix it, obliterate it, keep it at bay. According to data collected by the market research firm Marketdata Enterprises, Americans spend north of $60 billion annually on weight loss products. This is concrete evidence how, in a capitalist economy, the fear of fat is extremely profitable.

What is more, a fear of fatness is also a maintenance of a patriarchal culture. The majority of the citizens purchasing the aforementioned weight loss products are women. Extreme thinness is commonplace when marketing the ideal woman, whereas men’s body standards cater more to bulk and musculature. Women are also twice as likely as men to develop eating disorders, and around 6% of women in America will be diagnosed with disordered eating in their lifetime. Jes Baker’s viral 2014 TED talk claims that young girls are more terrified of gaining weight than they are of developing cancer and that 81% of 10-year-old girls are afraid of getting fat. All of these statistics point to an undeniable fact: women are more terrorized by fat than men.

The logical follow-up question is why. Why does our society, through its media and marketing tools, emphasize the importance of thinness among women more than men? It all comes back to tyrannical control. In her book, The Beauty Myth, Naomi Woolf claims that, “A culture fixated on female thinness is not an obsession about female beauty, but an obsession about female obedience. Dieting is the most potent political sedative in women’s history; a quietly mad population is a tractable one.” This notion, that dieting prevents women from forms of socio-political success due to their persistent fear of weight gain and the energy that they expend to prevent it, leads us back to Stoler’s concept of the Tyrant, who necessarily regulates emotion for the good of the nation. In order to maintain the hierarchy of a patriarchal society, especially in a time when said patriarchy is being challenged, the tyrant needs an invisible yet regulating control over women. In America or western culture, where a woman’s body has increasingly become her value, what better way to exercise control over her, than to perpetually terrorize her with that othering, contagious and emotionally destructive figure of fat.

Works Cited

Ahmed, Sarah. 2004 “Affective Economies.” Social Text. pp. 117–139

Brown, Maressa. “10-Year-Olds Are More Afraid of Fat Than Cancer: Why That Hits Home for Me.” CafeMom, 1 Aug. 2014, thestir.cafemom.com/healthy_living/175517/kids_afraid_fat_cancer.

Burke, Edmund. A Philosophical Enquiry. pp 29–70

Canetti, Elias. Crowds and Power. Selections

Crook,Tom. 2013 “Habit as Switchpoint” Body & Society. pp 275–281

Faubert, Michelle. 2016 “Werther Goes Viral: Suicidal Contagion, Anti-Vaccination, and Infectious Sympathy.” Literature and Medicine, pp. 389–417

Freud, Sigmund. “The Uncanny.

Kaufman, Walter. “Aristotle: The Judge Who Knows,” in Tragedy and Philosophy. pp 30–52.

Porras, Ileana. “On Terrorism: Reflections on Violence and The Outlaw” Utah Law Review. pp 295–313.

Stampnitzky, Lisa. “From insurgents to terrorists: experts, rational knowledge and irrational subjects.” In Disciplining Terror : How Experts Invented “Terrorism.” pp 49–82.

Stoler, Ann Laura. 2007. “Affective States,” in A Companion to the Anthropology of Politics, pp. 4–20

Wolf, Naomi, Robert DiNozzi, Rob Massey, and Jeff Schmidt. Naomi Wolf: The Beauty Myth. Los Angeles, Calif: Into the Classroom Media, 2009.

“Eating Disorder Statistics for Anorexia, Bulimia, Binge Eating.” Eating Disorder Hope, www.eatingdisorderhope.com/information/statistics-studies.