fatties and functionalism
Posted on August 21st, 2008 in Uncategorized
As promised, I am going to examine some sociological theories in regard to fat and fatties. The first of these theories is Functionalism, one of the predominant theories of early health sociology. Talcott Parsons was one of the main proponents of this position and he recognised the biological basis of many forms of illness but he also asserted the motivated nature of much illness behaviour (ie how someone acts when they are sick). In general terms, Parsons put forward that illness is a form of deviance in that it represented a failure to fulfil normal social obligations such as work or family commitments. He distinguished between illness as a ‘negatively achieved’ status and a ‘postively achieved status’. The first is referred to as the ‘capacity model’ and the second as the ‘deviancy model’.
The capacity model presents illness as a ‘failure’ to maintain ‘normal’ social roles. It is characterised by passivity, helplessness and emotional disturbance – states of being that represent failure in a society that values activity, competency and emotional self-control. According to Parsons, when someone experiences the state of sickness, they have access to the ’sick role’ which is a legitimate status designed to provide that person with temporary refuge from their normal societal commitments and to return them to a state of wellness.
The sick role is made up of two rights and two responsibilities. The sick person is exempt from their normal duties, such as their normal work or family tasks. However the degree of exemption is related to the nature and degree of their illness. They are less likely to be held responsible when they are not seen as being at fault for their illness or when their condition is severe. The sick person is also not held responsible for his or her condition and may request assistance from others, however they must also acknowledge the state of illness as inherently undesirable. They must want to get ‘well’ and refrain from any gains that might come from their status as a sick person. The sick person is obligated to seek competent medical help and co-operate fully in the process of recovery.
So where does this leave the 21st century fattie? ‘Obesity’ is regularly referred to as a disease these days but does the average fattie (let alone the average FA espousing fattie) fit the ‘role’ of the sick person?
From a functionalist perspective, illness = deviance. So if fat=ill that means fat= deviance. (Deviance being the diversion from social ‘norms’). What immediately springs to mind is that once the number of fatties hits 51%, fatties are in the majority and would technically be considered ‘normal’ as that would be the way most people were. However none of us are naive enough to think for one moment that just because most people are fat that fat hatred would cease and that is would be widely considered acceptable to be fat. That is just not going to happen. I wish it would but it isn’t likely. Why? Because too many fatties feel the same way about fat as fat haters do and until that changes, fat will be considered deviant. So for the sake of the exercise, let’s assume being fat is deviant. But is it an illness?
Parson’s criteria for the deviancy model of illness was ‘a failure to fulfil normal social obligations such as work or family commitments’. Last time I looked the vast majority of fat people were more than capable of caring for their families and maintaining their employment status. Yes, there are obviously going to be some fat people who can’t do those things due to mobility or other health issues but there are also thin people who have such problems. The number of people whose fat presents major obstacles to them carrying out either of these duties would be miniscule when compared to them number of people actually classified as overweight, obese etc by the BMI (Bullshit Mass Indicator).
So if most fatties don’t fit the deviancy model of sickness, how do they go with the capacity model? Are all fatties passive, helpless and emotionally disturbed? Again perhaps some fatties are one or the other of the three, perhaps some fatties are two of the three but again I would think that the number of fatties that exhibit all three of those characteristics would be minimal. And of those few, it could be reasonably argued that the reason they are passive, helpless and emotionally disturbed is because of social attitudes towards their fatness!
Parsons then went on to speak of a society that values activity, competency and emotional self-control. I am sure this rings bells with most fatties out there. Fatties are generally seen as inactive, incompetent and devoid of self-control (otherwise why wouldn’t they get up off their sofa and stop stuffing their mouths with baby flavoured donuts???). It wouldn’t matter how many fatties were shown to be active, competent and brimming with self-control, society would continue to tar us all with the same brush. Why? Because it suits them to do so (we shall examine that concept in more depth later).
Interestingly though, it would seem that society at large does not accept ‘obesity’ as a disease (and I am not saying we should). Even if it is seen that fatties fulfil the criteria of the capacity model, society refuses to carry the designation any further than that because to do so would require allowing the fat person to have access to the ’sick role’ which as stated earlier, is a ‘legitimate status designed to provide that person with a temporary refuge from their normal societal commitments and to return them to a state of wellness’. However, in saying that, the idea of temporary refuge and the return to a state of wellness reminds me of the concept of the Biggest Loser. Fat Haters may watch the show and laugh at the fatties but they have a begrudging respect for the fatties who are trying to do something about their ‘condition’. Because those fat people (the entrants on the BL and those who diet in general) have bought into the idea that they are deviant and need to return to social norms, they are granted conditional acceptance. It is the fattie who refuses to conform that is the problem and even more deviant. This fatty goes about their normal work and family tasks. They do not request assistance from others (particularly the medical profession) and do not acknowledge their state as inherently undesirable. They do not seek competent medical help (why would they when they don’t see themselves as sick?) and they do not co-operate fully in the recovery (diet) process.
Society does not see fat as an illness in that it doesn’t agree that being fat means someone should be exempt from work or family responsibilities. It sees the fat person as being totally responsible for their condition – the fatter someone is, the more responsible they are.Yet at the same time, society wants fatties to conform to the sick role in as much as we should be asking for assistance and acknowledging our fat as undesirable. We should want to ‘recover’ (get thin) and co-operate fully in the process (diet). But conformity to the ’sick role’ by fatties is unlikely to happen for several reasons – a/ the majority of fatties are capable of going about their daily life just as a thin person does. We work, we have relationships and children. b/ many fatties see the idea of ‘responsibility’ for being fat as a moot point. This is where genetics, medication and a host of other contributing factors emerge. It doesn’t matter why a person is fat, they still deserve respect. Yes, some people do put on weight as a result of particular types of illnesses. Yes, these people should seek medical attention for their underlying conditions but not for the weight gain per se. c/ not all fatties see their adipose as undesirable and if they don’t consider themselves unwell, why would they seek medical assistance or diet other than from social pressure? This of course is why the medical profession wants us to believe ‘obesity’ is a diease, because then we will feel morally obliged to seek ‘treatment’, after all who gets sick and doesn’t do something about it? Society wants fatties to conform to (what could be considered) punitive consequences of the sick role but it doesn’t want to grant the ‘benefits’ of that same role. FA fatties don’t want to touch the sick role with a barge pole. So Parsons and his theories regarding illness don’t satisfy either camp. It is fascinating to examine and ponder though!
I really loved the points you bring up in this post, and as a sociology major, it fascinates me. I’m planning on taking a medical sociology class sometimes in the near future, and I can only hope that it provides the sort of insight into FA and fatness as it has provided to you. I look forward to hearing more!
That was very interesting, thank you.
Fascinating post, Bri. Your recent research and thoughts certainly sheds light on why fatties receive so much grief. Definitely your niche (as you said in a previous post).
[...] has an absolutely brilliant post up at the moment examining models of illness in relation to fat. Definitely a ‘must read’. It is the fattie who refuses to conform that is the problem [...]
Hey, Bri.
I posted a response to your (brilliant!) analysis here:
http://miriam-heddy.livejournal.com/285742.html
because a short reply turned into a loooong one (that would’ve been even longer if my 5 month old had cooperated and not kept trying to eat my keyboard).
Yep. I really enjoyed your post, too.