Home Duke University Press
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     
  Home | Help | Feedback | Subscriptions | Archive | Search | Table of Contents


Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law 2005 30(5):869-923; DOI:10.1215/03616878-30-5-869
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via ISI Web of Science (13)
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Saguy, A. C.
Right arrow Articles by Riley, K. W.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Duke University Press

Weighing Both Sides: Morality, Mortality, and Framing Contests over Obesity

Abigail C. Saguy and Kevin W. Riley
University of California, Los Angeles

Abstract.

Despite recent and growing media attention surrounding obesity in the United States, the so-called obesity epidemic remains a highly contested scientific and social fact. This article examines the contemporary obesity debate through systematic examination of the claims and claimants involved in the controversy. We argue that four primary groups—antiobesity researchers, antiobesity activists, fat acceptance researchers, and fat acceptance activists—are at the forefront of this controversy and that these groups are fundamentally engaged in framing contests over the nature and consequences of excess body weight. While members of the fat acceptance groups embrace a body diversity frame, presenting fatness as a natural and largely inevitable form of diversity, members of the antiobesity camp frame higher weights as risky behavior akin to smoking, implying that body weight is under personal control and that people have a moral and medical responsibility to manage their weight. Both groups sometimes frame obesity as an illness, which limits blame by suggesting that weight is biologically or genetically determined but simultaneously stigmatizes fat bodies as diseased. While the antiobesity camp frames obesity as an epidemic to increase public attention, fat acceptance activists argue that concern over obesity is distracting attention from a host of more important health issues for fat Americans. We examine the strategies claimants use to establish their own credibility or discredit their opponents, and explain how the fat acceptance movement has exploited structural opportunities and cultural resources created by AIDS activism and feminism to wield some influence over U.S. public health approaches. We conclude that notions of morality play a central role in the controversy over obesity, as in many medical disputes, and illustrate how medical arguments about body weight can be used to stymie rights claims and justify morality-based fears.




This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Journal of Health Politics, Policy and LawHome page
J. B. Wolf
Is Breast Really Best? Risk and Total Motherhood in the National Breastfeeding Awareness Campaign
Journal of Health Politics Policy and Law, August 1, 2007; 32(4): 595 - 636.
[Abstract] [PDF]


Home page
Body SocietyHome page
L. F. Monaghan
McDonaldizing Men's Bodies? Slimming, Associated (Ir)Rationalities and Resistances
Body Society, June 1, 2007; 13(2): 67 - 93.
[Abstract] [PDF]


Home page
Journal of Health Politics, Policy and LawHome page
M. T. Heaney
Fat Politics: The Real Story behind America's Obesity Epidemic
Journal of Health Politics Policy and Law, February 1, 2007; 32(1): 131 - 138.
[PDF]


Home page
Int J EpidemiolHome page
P. Campos, A. Saguy, P. Ernsberger, E. Oliver, and G. Gaesser
The epidemiology of overweight and obesity: public health crisis or moral panic?
Int. J. Epidemiol., February 1, 2006; 35(1): 55 - 60.
[Full Text] [PDF]




  Home | Help | Feedback | Subscriptions | Archive | Search | Table of Contents


Copyright 2005 by Duke University Press