BOOK REVIEW

Conceptualizing Contradictory Claims in the ContestedField of FatFraming Fat: Competing Constructions in Contemporary Culture. By SamanthaKwan andJennifer Graves, New Brunswick, NJ, Rutgers University Press, 2013. 183 pp. $25.95(paperback). ISBN: 978-0-8135-6091-5.

Paula M. Brochu

Published online: 22 September 2013# Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

August 19, 2013: A Forbes (Haiken 2013) headline reads, “1in 5 deaths linked to being overweight or obese: Does thismean you?” The article reports on a study published in theAmerican Journal of Public Health (Masters et al. 2013) thatexamined death records and associated national health surveysbetween 1986 and 2006. The researchers found that 18.2 % ofall deaths were associated with carrying excess weight, astatistic that is 3 times higher than previous reports.

January 2, 2013: In Time (Blue 2013) it is reported thatoverweight people live longer than people who are clinicallynormal weight. The article discusses a study published in theJournal of the American Medical Association (Flegal et al.2013) that reviewed 97 research articles producing a samplesize of 2.88 million people and more than 270,000 deathsworldwide. The researchers found that people who were over-weight but not obese were 6 % less likely to die during thestudy period than clinically normal weight people.

July 29, 2013: Medical News Today (Nordqvist 2013)reports that being exposed to weight discrimination makespeople obese. The article features a study published in PLoSONE (Sutin and Terracciano 2013) that analyzed over 6,100participants drawn from the Health and Retirement Study. Theresearchers found that participants who experienced weightdiscrimination were 2.5 timesmore likely to be obese, and thatobese participants who experienced weight discriminationwere 3 times more likely to remain obese, 4 years later.

A Contested Field

Fat is a contested field, as is made clear by these recentresearch findings. There are numerous examples of contradic-tory claims about fat. By some accounts, fat is deadly; bysome others, fat is protective; and yet by other accounts,perceived fat discrimination is finger pointed as the culprit.

So, what does it mean to be fat in North American society?This complex question is tackled in Framing Fat: CompetingConstructions in Contemporary Culture . Although other bookshave been written on this topic (see Kirkland 2008; Saguy2013), Kwan and Graves utilize frame analysis to examine“the push-and-pull nature of framing contests … to [under-stand] the way fat is conceptualized and understood in contem-porary Western culture” (p. 41). In Framing Fat , four perspec-tives that provide different social constructions of the fat bodyare scrutinized: the aesthetic frame, health frame, choice andresponsibility frame, and social justice frame. For most people,fat is inextricably linked to attractiveness and health: To be fat isto be unattractive and unhealthy. For others, however, fat itselfis not a problem; instead, people’s reaction to fat is, guidingconcerns with consumer rights and weight discrimination. Intheir book, Kwan and Graves argue that these four framescomprise the contested field of fat, in which “for every actionthere is a reaction, for every believer there is a nonbeliever, andfor every advocate there is a detractor” (p. 41).

Fat as Frightful

“The reason you haven’t felt it is because it doesn’texist. What you call love was invented by guys likeme, to sell nylons.” – Don Draper, Mad Men (Weinerand Taylor 2007)

P. M. Brochu (*)Nova Southeastern University, Fort Lauderdale, FL, USAe-mail: pbrochu@nova.edu

Sex Roles (2013) 69:661–663DOI 10.1007/s11199-013-0323-y

As discussed in Framing Fat , the aesthetic frame views thefat body as problematic because it is physically unattractive.This sentiment is endorsed by the fashion-beauty complex andthe message that fat is undesirable is communicated in com-mercial advertisements both directly as well as indirectlythrough the omission of fat bodies. Key stakeholders in thefashion-beauty complex depict fatness as an individual prob-lem caused by a failure of self-discipline, and accordingly,weight loss is proposed as the solution by purchasing productsto achieve a thin(ner) body. The aesthetic frame is a dominantcultural perspective on fatness that resonates with the generalpublic: Fat is so frightful that the majority (57 %) of clinicallynormal weight Americans would rather give up at least 1 yearof their life than be obese (Schwartz et al. 2006).

Fat as Fatal

The sudden death of The Sopranos actor James Gandolfini –whowas 51 years of age, 6-foot 1-inches tall, and 275 pounds –fueled speculations that he was a “walking time bomb” for aheart attack that could have been prevented (Libov 2013).As discussed in Framing Fat , the health frame views the fatbody as problematic because it is not only unhealthy, butdeadly. This sentiment is endorsed by officials at the Centersfor Disease Control and Prevention, in which obesity istouted as a pressing public health crisis of epidemic propor-tions. Here, fatness is also depicted as an individual problemcaused by a failure of self-discipline, and accordingly,weight loss is proposed as the solution by dieting andexercise. In the health frame, fatness is medicalized and thisfocus on health resonates in the popular imagination: Fat isso fatal that the majority (79 %) of Americans view obesityas a major health problem, comparable to smoking (LakeSnell Perry and Associates 2003).

Fat and Food Politics

Hey New York –Your Beverage Is Still Your Choice! Incase you missed it, the NewYork State Supreme Court’sAppellate Division unanimously declared the soda banan overreach of executive power earlier today. This is anaffirmation of Justice Milton Tingling’s March lowercourt ruling that deemed Mayor [Michael] Bloomberg’sproposed ban on sweetened beverages sold in containerslarger than 16 ounces “arbitrary and capricious.”(American Beverage Association 2013, para. 1)

According to Kwan and Graves, the choice and responsi-bility frame does not view the fat body as problematic; in-stead, myths about fatness that interfere with personal freedom

and individual choice are viewed as the problem. This senti-ment is supported by food industry advocates at the Center forConsumer Freedom, who argue that obesity does not do asmuch damage as asserted by public health officials, and thatphysical inactivity is the primary contributor to obesity (notfood consumption). Rather, body size is defended as a matterof personal responsibility. Thus, rather than promoting weightloss or health behavior change, people are encouraged tomaintain the status quo and reject proposed laws that seek toregulate the food and beverage industry. The choice andresponsibility frame stands in opposition to the health frame,but even though it is a reactionary cultural perspective onfatness, it has traction with the public at large: Fat and foodpolitics are so entrenched that 66 % of Americans believe thatthe fast-food industry is not responsible for obesity and itshealth consequences, implying that individual consumers are(Saad 2003).

Fat and Fair Treatment

“Dear obese PhD applicants: if you didn’t have thewillpower to stop eating carbs, you won’t have thewillpower to do a dissertation #truth” – Geoffrey Miller(as quoted by Ingeno 2013, para. 2)

As discussed in Framing Fat , the social justice frame doesnot view the fat body as problematic; instead, weight-basedbias, stigma, and discrimination are viewed as the problem.This sentiment is endorsed by activists at the NationalAssociation to Advance Fat Acceptance who argue that fatpeople are not blameworthy, and that weight discriminationerodes the mental and physical health and well-being of fatpeople. The social justice frame reacts to and challenges the fat-blaming discourse created and reinforced by the other frames,and seeks to abolish weight discrimination through education,empowerment, and legal policy changes. Although negativeattitudes, beliefs, and behaviors directed toward fat people arepervasive, the majority (54 %) of Americans support inclusionof weight in civil rights law to protect people from discrimina-tion on the basis of body weight (Puhl and Heuer 2011).

Framing Fat Bodies

As a social psychologist with research interests in weight biasand stigma (Brochu and Dovidio 2013; Brochu and Esses2009, 2011; Brochu et al. 2011; Brochu and Morrison 2007;Brochu et al. 2013), I found the analysis provided by Kwanand Graves in Framing Fat to be stimulating and timely as the“war against fat” (p. 115) continues. In elucidating the per-spectives of key stakeholders, Kwan and Graves evaluate theframes for their accuracy, credibility, and applicability to

662 Sex Roles (2013) 69:661–663

different social groups. Being aware of the multiple ways thatfat is framed allows for better understanding of our ownparadoxical thinking about our own bodies and the bodies ofothers, and provides perspective on contradictory claims in thecontested field of fat.

Kwan and Graves acknowledge that the aesthetic, health,choice and responsibility, and social justice frames “cannot beneatly dissected into component parts… [because] frames aredialogical” (p. 136). I was thus pleased to see discussion ofinterframe connections and how the frames influence, bolster,and undermine each other. I wished, however, that this dis-cussion incorporated speculation on how these frames aremutually reinforced and modified over time, with a vision ofhow the competing constructions of fat can be used to promotea social justice agenda. Nevertheless, in clarifying ways inwhich the different frames coalesce, Kwan and Graves weresuccessful in challenging conventional beliefs about fat bod-ies. In so doing, they highlighted weight discrimination as asignificant problem worthy of attention, as fat continues to bemoralized, medicalized, and politicized.

Framing Fat would be of interest not only to researchersand educators with interests in fatness and obesity, but alsothose with interests in the media, public health, food policy,and social justice more generally. As such, this book would bea welcome addition to any fat studies, social construction, orcritical thinking course. If you seek to better understandcontradictory claims in the contested field of fat, then pickup this book today.

References

American Beverage Association. (2013, July 30). Hey New York – Yourbeverage is still your choice! Retrieved from http://www.ameribev.org/blog/2013/07/hey-new-york-–-your-beverage-is-still-your-choice/

Blue, L. (2013, January 2). Being overweight is linked to lower risk ofmortality. Time. Retrieved from http://healthland.time.com/2013/01/02/being-overweight-is-linked-to-lower-risk-of-mortality/

Brochu, P. M., & Dovidio, J. F. (2013). Would you like fries (380calories) with that?Menu labeling mitigates the impact ofweight-based stereotype threat on food choice. Social Psycho-logical and Personality Science . Advance online publication.doi:10.1177/1948550613499941.

Brochu, P.M., & Esses, V.M. (2009).Weight prejudice andmedical policy:Support for an ambiguously discriminatory policy is influenced byprejudice-colored glasses. Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy,9, 117–133. doi:10.1111/j.1530-2415.2009.01175.x.

Brochu, P. M., & Esses, V. M. (2011). What’s in a name? The effects ofthe labels ‘fat’ versus ‘overweight’ on weight bias. Journal ofApplied Social Psychology, 41 , 1981–2008. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.2011.00786.x.

Brochu, P. M., Gawronski, B., & Esses, V. M. (2011). The integrativeprejudice framework and different forms of weight prejudice: Ananalysis and expansion. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations,14, 429–444. doi:10.1177/1368430210396520.

Brochu, P. M., & Morrison, M. A. (2007). Implicit and explicit prejudicetoward overweight and average-weight men and women:Testing their correspondence and relation to behavioral inten-tions. Journal of Social Psychology, 147 , 681–706. doi:10.3200/SOCP.147.6.681-706.

Brochu, P. M., Pearl, R. L., Puhl, R. M., & Brownell, K. D. (2013). Domedia portrayals of obesity influence support for weight-relatedmedical policy? Health Psychology. Advance online publicationdoi:10.1037/a0032592.

Flegal, K. M., Kit, B. K., Orpana, H., & Graubard, B. I. (2013). Associ-ation of all-cause mortality with overweight and obesity usingstandard body mass index categories: A systematic review andmeta-analysis. Journal of the American Medical Association, 309 ,71–82. doi:10.1001/jama.2012.113905.

Haiken,M. (2013, August 19). 1 in 5 deaths linked to being overweight orobese: Does this mean you? Forbes . Retrieved from http://www.forbes.com/sites/melaniehaiken/2013/08/19/overweight-watch-out-1-in-5-deaths-now-linked-to-being-overweight-or-obese/

Ingeno, L. (2013, August 7). #Penalty. Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved fromhttp://www.insidehighered.com/news/2013/08/07/fat-shaming-professor-faces-censure-university

Kirkland, A. (2008). Fat rights: Dilemmas of difference and personhood .New York: New York University Press.

Lake Snell Perry & Associates. (2003). Obesity as a public health issue:A look at solutions. Retrieved from http://www.phsi.harvard.edu/health_reform/poll_results.pdf

Libov, C. (2013, June 20). James Gandolfini was ‘walking time bomb,’says top doctor. Newsmax Health . Retrieved from http://www.newsmaxhealth.com/Headline/james-gandolfini-death-heart/2013/06/20/id/510948

Masters, R. K., Reither, E. N., Powers, D. A., Yang, Y. C., Burger, A. E.,& Link, B. G. (2013). The impact of obesity on US mortality levels:The importance of age and cohort factors in population estimates.American Journal of Public Health . Advance online publicationdoi:10.2105/AJPH.2013.301379.

Nordqvist, C. (2013, July 29). Weight discrimination makes people moreobese. Medical News Today . Retrieved from http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/264058.php

Puhl, R. M., & Heuer, C. A. (2011). Public opinion about laws to prohibitweight discrimination in the United States. Obesity, 19, 74–82. doi:10.1038/oby.2010.126.

Saad, L. (2003, July 21). Public balks at obesity lawsuits. Gallup .Retrieved from http://www.gallup.com/poll/8869/public-balks-obesity-lawsuits.aspx

Saguy, A. C. (2013).What’s wrong with fat? New York: Oxford Univer-sity Press.

Schwartz, M. B., Vartanian, L. R., Nosek, B. A., & Brownell, K. D.(2006). The influence of one’s own body weight on implicit andexplicit anti-fat bias. Obesity, 14 , 440–447. doi:10.1038/oby.2006.58.

Sutin, A. R., & Terracciano, A. (2013). Perceived weight discrim-ination and obesity. PLoS ONE, 8 , 1–4. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0070048.

Weiner, M. (Writer), & Taylor, A. (Director). (2007). Smoke gets in youreyes [Television series episode]. In S. Hornbacher, J. Lechner, T.London, & G. Schultz (Producers), Mad men . Los Angeles, CA:Lionsgate Television.

Sex Roles (2013) 69:661–663 663