This article was downloaded by: [Universite Laval] On: 03 March 2015, At: 06:01 Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Medical Anthropology: CrossCultural Studies in Health and Illness Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/gmea20

The good body: When big is better Claire M. Cassidy

a b

a

Lecturer at the University of Maryland , 6201 Winnebago Road, Bethesda, MD, 20816 b

Senior Associate at KBL Group Inc. Published online: 12 May 2010.

To cite this article: Claire M. Cassidy (1991) The good body: When big is better, Medical Anthropology: Cross-Cultural Studies in Health and Illness, 13:3, 181-213, DOI: 10.1080/01459740.1991.9966048 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01459740.1991.9966048

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content. This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/ page/terms-and-conditions

Medical Anthropology, Vol. 13, pp. 181-213 Reprints available directly from the publisher Photocopying permitted by license only

©1991 Gordon and Breach Science Publishers S.A. Printed in the United States of America

The Good Body: When Big is Better

Downloaded by [Universite Laval] at 06:01 03 March 2015

Claire M. Cassidy An important cultural question is, "What is a 'good'—desirable, beautiful, impressive—body?" The answers are legion; here I examine why bigger bodies represent survival skill, and how this power symbolism is embodied by behaviors that guide larger persons toward the top of the social hierarchy. Bigness is a complex concept comprising tallness, boniness, muscularity and fattiness. Data show that most people worldwide want to be big—both tall and fat. Those who achieve the ideal are disproportionately among the society's most socially powerful. In the foodsecure West, fascination with power and the body has not waned, but has been redefined such that thinness is desired. This apparent anomaly is resolved by realizing that thinness in the midst of abundance—as long as one is also tall and muscular—still projects the traditional message of power, and brings such social boons as upward mobility.

People like to modify their bodies. We paint our faces, pierce nose or ears, circumcise the penis, enclose the neck, feet or waist in confining rings or shoes or corsets, bleach or brown or tattoo or even carve our flesh. Often the entire body is the focus of modification. An important question in every society is, "What is a 'good' body?" The answers are legion; my particular focus is on the biocultural issue of whether big bodies are better, for whom, when, and why. Many of the world's peoples prefer, desire, and idealize big bodies. 1 A preference for "tall" is almost universal, especially for men. A preference for "fat" characterizes the developing world and until recently was common in the Euro-American cultural sphere as well. Muscularity is also widely admired though there is less published data on this point (see Bolin 1989). Why do people want to be big? Do they succeed in modifying their bodies to match cultural ideals? The answer to the second question is that, yes, people do succeed in looking or getting bigger, but success is non-randomly distributed— only some segments of the typical population are able to achieve bigness. Those segments are commonly people high in the social hierarchy—people who represent power and success to the society and, not coincidentally, control a disproportionate share of the society's resources. These facts help answer the first question. Bigness symbolizes the power of dominance, so people who want to appear dominant try to be imposing. This can be done through the display of material wealth, including the wearing of clothes that emphasize and enlarge. But as the data below indicate, the symbol is so CLAIRE M. CASSIDY, 6201 Winnebago Road, Bethesda, MD 20816, is a human biologist and medical and nutritional anthropologist. She has taught at the University of Minnesota and is a Senior Associate at KBL Group Inc. (a medical and nutritional research and development firm) and a Lecturer at the University of Maryland. She has published widely in the areas of prehistoric health and nutrition, mother and child nutrition, and American attitudes to foods and disease. 181

182 C. M. Cassidy effective that societies differentially reward those who are its fleshy representation, and individuals sacrifice health, comfort and income to embody it. In this paper I explore the logic that makes bigness bioculturally desirable. Other papers in this issue examine related topics, primarily from the cultural perspective (Sobal; Nichter and Nichter), or primarily from the biological perspective (Stini; Ritenbaugh). In every paper we assume that there is a complex feedback loop between cultural and biological imperatives, making the analysis of the meanings and functions of body size complex and subtle. The first part of this paper defines the concept of bigness, showing it to be real, but also relative and dependent on context. This is followed by a brief section summarizing the biological advantages of bigness; more detail is given in the papers by Ritenbaugh and Stini. The third section examines the perceived socio-

Downloaded by [Universite Laval] at 06:01 03 March 2015

cultural advantages of bigness as expressed directly and indirectly by users. In the

fourth section I ask whether the symbol of bigness as power has enough cogency to cause believers to reward and/or seek actual physical bigness. The fifth section examines the apparent anomaly that while big-tallness is admired in the modern West, big-fatness is publicly little admired especially for women. In the final section I explore some reasons why people idealize the extremes of the biological distribution rather than the middle where most of us live. Throughout I call upon a wide variety of sources to illustrate my points, from those that consciously examine cultural coding (such as historical and anthropological works) to those that mirror cultural coding (lawsuits, salary scales, artworks, novels, cartoons) and thereby, in a sense, "prove" the points made in the scholarly works.

WHAT IS BIGNESS? Body size has two major components, height and bulk. Bulkiness may be subdivided into three parts, boniness, muscularity, and fattiness. I define bigness as the upper end of the population size distribution for any or all of these components. Bigness is population dependent, meaning that "big" in a shorter or slighter population may be no more than average, or even small, in comparison to another population. For example, working class boys who were "tall enough" to pass a cutoff designation and be selected for naval training in Britain between 1770 and 1870 averaged in height what is today the third percentile among British boys (Floud 1983). Of the three components of bulk, only boniness is not readily alterable. Stature can be promoted (up to the organism's genetic limits) or restricted, fat can be added or subtracted, and muscles can be developed or allowed to stagnate. While stature can only be manipulated upwards in childhood, bulkiness can be altered at any time of life. Culturally, apparent body size including height can be enlarged by the skillful use of clothing, headdresses and other accouterments. Scientists can readily measure stature. Bulkiness is more difficult to measure because it combines the three components. In practice, most research noted below focuses on "heaviness" and "weight" and does not distinguish among the components. A minority emphasize "obesity" but define it not in terms of actual fattiness but in terms of being heavier than some statistical norm, commonly above 120% of the standard population mode (National Research Council 1989). For most purposes, "normal" size is defined scientifically as sizes that fall within

Downloaded by [Universite Laval] at 06:01 03 March 2015

The Good Body: When Big is Better 183 2 standard deviations of the population mode. Because data is lacking for some populations, and because growth is slower than potential in other populations, it has become common to measure normalcy in terms of a standard population. For example, the WHO (1978) designated the U.S. National Center for Health Statistics growth curves for boys and girls as the world norm against which adequacy of growth for all populations may be compared. Using such a chart, the size of poor children in developing countries is seen to be inadequate. However, in terms of local cultural norms, such size is often viewed as acceptable. Because of racial differences in usual size or in growth pacing (cf. Hitchcock et al. 1986; Martins 1971; Meredith 1987; Rona and Chinn 1987), some workers question the use of international standards (Walker et al. 1978; Walker and Walker 1977). At a minimum they must be applied with care. Decisions are best made with an awareness of historical or cultural context. The designation of "normal" even in highly quantitative studies is not free of cultural bias, a fact amply documented by Ritenbaugh (1982) in her analysis of how "preferred weights" for adult Americans slipped steadily downwards from the 1950s to 1970s. The effect of this slippage was to push the official measures of the prevalence of "obesity" ever higher, even though actual adult body weights by age did not rise in the period. To take another example, Napoleon has traditionally been portrayed as an unusually short man. His "odd" rise to power—short men are understood as having a hard time becoming powerful—is even summarized in a psychiatric label, the "Napoleonic Complex," applied to power-hungry short people.2 Actually, as Burns (1985) showed, Napoleon at approximately 163 cm (5'4") was unusually tall compared to his compatriots on Corsica, and even above the then-average for men from northern France. Measured according to the height standards of his time and population, he was a typically tall upper class man. Researchers also often define "abnormal" growth in statistical terms, this time as values beyond two standard deviations from the mode. People whose sizes fall at these statistical extremes are often biomedically defined as requiring intervention. Undersized children need refeeding, while the "obese" must lose weight. As we will see, however, the upper end of this scale is sometimes culturally desirable . . . even up to and including what biomédical personnel designate "morbid obesity." Extremes of slenderness have also been culturally idealized, a familiar example being the popularity of the skeletal clothing model Twiggy in Europe and North America in the 1960s. Again, people may seek or be recommended medical treatment to alter their size not because they are actually unhealthy, but because some aspect of their size disturbs cultural norms. An American white girl over 183 cm (6'0") tall may be given estrogens to artificially stop her growth, while the recent ability to produce growth hormone in large quantities has caused many American parents of "normal short" children to try treatment in the hope of increasing their children's stature (Press 1986). In sum, bigness is real, but it is also relative and contextual. ADVANTAGES OF BIGNESS: BIOLOGICAL ANSWERS

The biological significance of bigness is detailed in other papers in this issue; this brief review sets the scene for the cultural and sociological data to follow.

Downloaded by [Universite Laval] at 06:01 03 March 2015

184 C. M. Cassidy Body sizes are typically distributed in a bell or normal curve. Biologically, those whose sizes fall at the two extremes are generally less viable than those whose sizes fall into the space in the middle (Figure I).3 For example, morbidity and mortality are raised at both ends of the weight curve, while those of average size have the highest health expectancy (National Research Council 1989:21). But this summation is misleading, for it assumes that the base population is wellfed. Historically, few human groups have been homogeneously well-fed; pressures from the physical and social environment typically mean that sub-groups emerge, some of whom are better fed than others. Thus, apart from a population living in an "optimal" environment (should we ever be able to define such a thing), there is commonly a righthand skew which gives the survival advantage to those who are "taller" or "heavier" than their population norm, but still within the range of the biologically usual. Suboptimal environments commonly emerge from the action of cultural variables—poverty being a case in point—and in humans it is often difficult to distinguish biological from cultural effects. Nor, perhaps, is it necessary, since the human biological niche is culture. If people try to alter their body sizes from the "given," it is clear that they are trying to alter biological norms to suit cultural ideals. Indeed, in some cases there may be little overlap between what scientists recognize as the probable optimal size and what people idealize as the "good"

TALL MUSCULAR

BIG BONED

The Space in the Middle

THIN

vSlight

Small Boned SHORT Figure 1. The Space in the Middle.

Downloaded by [Universite Laval] at 06:01 03 March 2015

The Good Body: When Big is Better 185 body. We are engaged in exploring why "bigger" is better; a linked question is why many people seem less interested in the middle of the distribution—the commonplace, the average, the norm. I will return to this question at the end of this paper. Apart from conscious culturally-selected efforts to mold size, human body sizes and shapes vary in response to racial/genetic factors and to numerous natural environmental variables. Meredith (1987; also Hitchcock et al. 1986) has summarized a huge array of data charting human variability in physical stockiness. He shows that some groups are slender under virtually any social or environmental regime, while others tend towards stockiness. Hunt (1972) had earlier made this point when he noted that tall narrow-chested people rarely become obese while muscular and barrel-chested people easily do. Hunt (also see Boyd 1980; Heald 1972) also charted patterns of weight gain with age. Specifically, fat weight tends to increase gradually to the end of the sixth decade (age 59) in normal men and women who are sedentary or urbanized; a few isolated tribal populations maintain steadier weights throughout adulthood. For the last two centuries there has been a secular trend for increased height and weight in much of the world (Boyd 1980; Eveleth and Tanner 1976; Malina and Zavaleta 1980). Interestingly, several studies show that the secular trend for weight is stronger than that for height. That is, people are proportionately heavier today than they were in the past (Moore 1970; Schwartz 1987). In the U.S., both chair sizes and clothing sizes have shown gradual increases since the 1920s (Schwartz 1987). There also are population differences in growth pacing (the age patterns of maximal rate of growth), which may be genetic or may be responses to a difficult environment. Growth studies in developing countries often show children growing slowly through childhood and then experiencing a prolonged growth spurt in adolescence that brings the distribution of their final heights and weights well within the range typical of developed countries (Martins 1971; Richardson 1977; Richardson and Wadvalla 1977). Advantages of Tal I ness Taller children are found when parents are tall, when the food supply is good, the family small, the educational level high, and the home environment pleasant (Goldstein 1971; Prokopec 1970). Children born earlier in a woman's pregnancy history tend to be taller, and heavier, than their siblings born later (Prokopec 1970). Children of higher parity tend to be shorter, and shortness is also associated with hunger, frequent illness, food intolerance (Price et al. 1988), and crowding (Essen et al. 1978). People who are taller than the population average-for-age (excluding those who are pathologically tall) tend to have better reproductive histories (Baird 1974; Efiong and Banjoko 1975; Ounstead et al. 1982; Pickering 1987; Sibert et al. 1978), to be stronger (Clement 1974), to have larger head circumferences (De Sigueira et al. 1981; Ounstead et al. 1982), and to have higher measured IQs (Barrett and Frank 1987; Belmont et al. 1975; Harrison et al. 1974; Neligan and Pradham 1976; Pollitt and Mueller 1982; Richardson et al. 1978; Weinberg et al. 1974; Wilson et al. 1986). In contrast, a baby born to a short mother, or one that has a low birth weight, has

186 C. M. Cassidy lowered viability (Ford et al. 1986; Hack and Breslau 1986; Knutzen and Davey 1977; Nickel et al. 1982).

Downloaded by [Universite Laval] at 06:01 03 March 2015

Advantages of Heaviness4 Biologists have shown that the capacity to store fat is directly related to mass, so that as body size increases the ability to store fat increases faster than the rate at which fat is metabolized. This translates to an ability for bigger animals to fast longer than smaller ones, an advantage wherever the food supply is unpredictable (French 1988). Although frank obesity is associated with higher morbidity and mortality from numerous chronic diseases (Adams et al. 1986; Keil et al. 1977; National Research Council 1989; Negri et al. 1988; Shaper et al. 1981), a good supply of fat provides a significant health hedge against infectious diseases, especially in the absence of modern infectious disease control (Scrimshaw et al. 1968). Negri et al.'s Italian data (1988) suggests heaviness is also protective against gastrointestinal problems and anemia. Thin mothers have more underweight babies, while heavier mothers tend to have normal or heavy babies (Fung et al. 1988; Gerlini et al. 1986). Children born heavier, or who are heavier in childhood, tend to grow faster, mature earlier and reach menarche at earlier ages (Heald 1972, and others). While early maturity is not necessarily an advantage—it is associated, for example, with shorter stature, which is a social disadvantage—it could be useful and desired in settings in which life expectancy was short and early reproduction desirable. This situation has characterized most human populations for most of human history, hence in a majority of environmental settings the fattiness that supports rapid growth and early maturity would be an advantage. Similarly, Neel argued in 1962 that the tendency to diabetes in fat people is merely the disadvantageous tip of an iceberg of advantage. Specifically, he maintains that those who may develop diabetes in abundant circumstances, are individuals who, for metabolic reasons, have enhanced survivability when food resources are scarce. Female reproductive fitness has been shown to be linked to greater fattiness even when social class and ethnicity are held constant (Scott and Bajema 1982). Body fat is often associated with muscularity and physical strength (Clement 1974; Hunt 1972). Physical strength is better maintained with age in people who are heavier, taller and more intellectually active (Clement 1974). Heaviness is not the same thing as obesity, but in the above examples, authors were describing people who had, in population terms, more fat in their bodies than those to whom they were being compared. ADVANTAGES OF BIGNESS: SOCIOCULTURAL ANSWERS

Although body shape and size have biological significance, for most people the important body meanings are social. The body is a social signaling device. Through its modification by diet and exercise, and through the use of clothing,

Downloaded by [Universite Laval] at 06:01 03 March 2015

The Good Body: When Big is Better 187 jewelry and make-up, people signal many things besides age and sex. Prime among these are their positions in the social hierarchy. Outside of rare truly egalitarian settings, people tend to want to rise in the hierarchy. Those higher have more resources to ensure their own survival and more power to determine their own fates and those of subordinates.5 But dominant people must signal it to others, and those who want such power must accumulate not only its reality but its symbols. We are all familiar with its material trappings— we even have a phrase for it, "conspicuous consumption."6 Another way to show dominance power is to be big. Bigness has both direct (strength) and indirect or symbolic meanings. Short of combat, the symbolism of bigness is most cogent and is the subject of this section. At the most elementary—or perhaps fundamental—level, being bigger than others means having physical dominance. Among non-human animals, bigness and dominance are directly related in many species (see Wilson 1980). The same relationship holds among human beings, with males dominating females and smaller males in most societies under many circumstances (Figure 2). Among primates, the elemental picture is rapidly modified by sociality. In many monkey societies, dominant adults of either sex tend to be the offspring of dominant mothers (Wilson 1980). However, because they have had dominant mothers, these monkeys have also tended to have better access to food and care in infancy, and have grown up larger than their less dominant conspecifics. In monkeys bigness and social power are linked from conception, a relationship that also holds for humans (see below). Scarcity is real for all forms of life. Biologically, those who can gain a more sure access to food or other resources are more likely to survive and reproduce. Most of the world's peoples know that fatter people are less likely to starve, survive many diseases better, and do better during pregnancy. Thus bigness—especially fatness—comes to symbolize abundance, health, and fertility, all forms of power. Similarly, logic suggests that those who can become big under trying circumstances must be receiving a disproportionate share of the community's resources, must be skilled at overcoming life's obstacles. Their bigness—the physical proof of their prowess—comes to symbolize social power, wealth, prestige, rank.7 Finally, one who fulfills the dreams and ideals of society is admired, is attractive. By such means bigness becomes defined as beautiful and fashionable. In sum, physical bigness both permits and proves good survivorship skills and in turn comes to symbolize such widely desired social goods as abundance, fertility, health, success, wealth, prestige, admirability, and beauty. On Being Tall Tallness as the ideal is reported widely in the world, for both sexes. Outside of the Euro-American sphere, a preference for tallness seems usually to be linked to a preference for muscularity and plumpness, that is, human massiveness is considered beautiful. This is reported, for example, for women of the Chukchee, Hidatsa, Pukapukans, and Thonga (Ford and Beach 1951). The Wogeo prefer a large woman with broad hips and powerful limbs because "a big woman is stronger than

Downloaded by [Universite Laval] at 06:01 03 March 2015

188 C. M. Cassidy

Figure 2. Drawing by Booth; c 1977. The New Yorker Magazine, Inc.

a little one" (Ford and Beach 1951:87). The Siriono also admire tallness, and a tall woman with large hips and breasts and a fat vulva fulfills that society's ideals; the men make up songs featuring fat vulvas and use the term as an endearment (1951:89). Sometimes the fascination with bigness may surface as a concern with length— as of the penis. Western men often equate greater length with greater masculine power and dominance. Gregersen (1983) illustrates the second century AD British "Dorset Giant," who has an enormous phallus. Perhaps this statue, and similar

Downloaded by [Universite Laval] at 06:01 03 March 2015

The Good Body: When Big is Better 189 works from other parts of the world, provide a parallel to the familiar fatty fertility statuettes of females. In modern times a man known as "Long Dong John" has made a career by displaying a penis reputedly 48 cm (19") long (Gregersen 1983:66). Other examples in Gregersen (1983), and in Ford and Beach (1951), and elsewhere, show that long penises are also considered desirable in non-Western societies. Tallness is an ideal for the male in North American society, and perhaps, increasingly, for women as well. It seems to represent dominance and success as well as beauty. Statistics show that Miss America Pageant winners have been growing progressively taller (Garner and Garfinkel 1980). My rapid survey of "personals" ads (ads intended to attract a mate) in a magazine that targets wealthy readers finds nearly 57% of men either specifically stating their height (only one under 5'10") or claiming to be "tall"; many linked these descriptors to words like "handsome," "attractive," and "athletic." The power of the fairy tale image of the prince as "tall, dark and handsome"—who ever fantasized about a short prince?— remains so great that a recent successful public service print ad featured the phrase "—no matter how tall, attractive and successful someone sounds, he could be carrying the AIDS virus" (Carovano 1989). Common expressions recognize height domination in phrases intended to slight others—as "superiors" we "look down on" our "inferiors," and hardly anyone likes a nickname like "Shorty." Fast (1970) speaks of height as a power broker. He argues that even when not physically taller, superiors manipulate environments to ensure that inferiors are lower than themselves. Altars, thrones, and lecterns are raised, and the modern boss can reduce visitors by the simple strategem of providing them with soft chairs—all this signals "I am higher than you; I am dominant." Americans may be unusually sensitive about height. In the 1988 presidential election the height of candidate Michael Dukakis became an issue. At 173 cm (5'8") he was considered unacceptably short—apparently for a position representing American abundance and power. The issue was widely understood—it rated a question in Parade magazine (11/6/88), and was satirized in the cartoon "Momma" (Mell Lazarus, 11/7/88). In fact, only two U.S. presidents have been at or below the average height for their day, and many have been unusually tall (Figure 3). Though there is a tradition of admiring the "petite" figure, American working women nowadays worry about not being tall enough. An engineer who described herself as "5'2" and 95 lbs" wrote to an advice columnist in a magazine aimed at career women asking for help in gaining "respect" from her colleagues (Harragan 1987). Another issue of the same magazine scored a prejudice named "heightism," provided a long list of women who were successful though short, and featured an article on how to appear tall even if short. Shortness was assumed to imply insignificance, and the solutions—lower your voice, remain seated so no one will notice your height, establish your territory, take the initiative, dress to look long—are all intended to help the woman project not only a tall, but also a capable and powerful image (Satran 1987). In the 1980s a rock song by Randy Newman spoofing short people rose to the top of the charts. Again it featured the idea that shortness was insignificance, powerlessness: "Short people ain't got no reason to live. . . ."The song amused the tall but infuriated the short, calling forth accusations of prejudice and bigotry. Finally, Americans are not only expected to be big, but also to "Think Big," a

194 i—

Heights of U.S. Presidents*

190 ~" — 188 —

Downloaded by [Universite Laval] at 06:01 03 March 2015

* 16

192 —

n

«3 • 31

• 21

•1

186 —

95th Percentlle

• 7

184 —

» 1S

• 10

• 5

• 26

»20

182 —

• 3' 22

180 Stature (cm)

176

• 13

174

• • » 9 11 12

172

*2

170 _

.30

27

• 25

• 18 • 19 Medical , Students^. , . — • Harvard

• 24 British Class IV • 23 Military Academy

• Napoleon

50th

" Africans"

.* US Army

• 6

Northern < French



• 33 • 29 . US Army • Officers | » British Class 1 Hrdllcka's """ • 32

• 14 • 17

178

168

f

• 35 .34

• 28

|

I

i US Army Range

en a> x o z 5th Percentile

166 164 — 162 • Working Class

160 — 158 | —

" I

156 1780

90

I 1800

> Poor MountainFrench 1

20

' Population height data at different periods Key: from Boyd 1980. Height of Napoleon averaged 1. from estimates In Burns 1985. NCHS data 2. from National Center for Health Statistics 3. standard growth chart, boys age 18. 4. Heights of presidents from Kane 1974. 5. Secular Trend line averaged. 6.

30

40

|

I

50

60

I

Washington 7. Jackson J. Adams 8. Van Buren Jefferson 9. W.H. Harrison Madison 10. Tyler Monroe 11. Polk J.Q. Adams 12. Taylor

Figure 3.

I

70 80 Decade 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18.

1 90

Flllmore Pierce Buchanan Lincoln A. Johnson Grant

1 1 1900

19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24.

Heights of United States Presidents.

10

I

I

I

I

I

20

30

40

50

60

Hayes Garfleld Arthur Cleveland B. Harrison McKinley

25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30.

T. Roosevelt Taft Wilson Harding Coolldge Hoover

70

31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36.

F.D. Roosevelt Truman Elsenhower Kennedy LB. Johnson Nixon

The Good Body: When Big is Better 191 demand that was turned to humorous power by John and Greg Rice, dwarf brothers who run a personal management firm (Figure 4).

Downloaded by [Universite Laval] at 06:01 03 March 2015

On Being Fat Obese vs Fat. Obesity and fatness are not the same thing. Obesity is a biomédical disease state which consists in having an excess of adipose tissue in one's body. It causes physical stress and is sometimes associated with raised levels of morbidity and mortality from chronic diseases. In a society like ours where adiposity is stigmatized, being obese is also associated with psychological illness. But adipose tissue can be understood quite differently, as something one adds on, carries about, and shows others. In this case the social significance is primary and being fat is not a medical but a social act. People who hold these beliefs do not admire a disease, but rather fat, a real substance which expresses effective social participation, power-become-flesh. The Logic of Fat Admiration. As noted above, corpulence is most often admired where food is recurrently scarce. It is easy to understand why hungry people think fatness is desirable—it represents both the visual and literal fulfillment of the dream of plenty. It is visible proof of one's success at drawing resources—always scarce!—toward one's self,8 suggesting that one must be wealthy, politically powerful, perhaps even blessed. It illustrates abundance, implies fertility, and represents health, strength and beauty, for those who fulfill society's dreams and ideals are admired and defined as paragons. Where food is scarce the mere desire for fat will rarely result in obesity, but in a society where food is abundant, it can and likely will. The body dynamics of power brokerage differ from locale to locale and by historical period. As noted, fat-admiring attitudes are common, especially in the developing world and among sub-groups in the developed world. For example, American fanners are least likely to want to lose, and most likely to want to gain, weight of groups reported by Dwyer and Mayer (1970). Thin-admiring attitudes characterize the upper class in much of the developed world—an apparent anomaly in the "power" argument which is resolved in a later section. Women are more often admired fat than men. This is a somewhat practical attitude since women are biologically better designed to store fat. The pattern of desiring a fat female with a slender male is reported from many parts of the world (Bollig 1927; Ford and Beach 1951; Gregersen 1983). The idea also occurs in folkloric summary: "Jack Spratt could eat no fat, his wife could eat no lean. . . . " Or consider the familiar taunt—but who is being taunted?—"Here comes the bride, big, fat and wide/Here comes the groom, skinny as a broom." The various social advantages of fatness are not readily separable in real life. For example, force feeding of girls is practiced among the nomadic Moors of Mauritania (Abeille 1979). Men in that culture consider fat women prettier. Since fattening is accomplished by feeding a diet that consists exclusively of milk, the ability to produce a fat daughter or maintain a fat wife also indicates that the man has many camels, hence is wealthy; his fat womenfolk help him feel pride and accumulate prestige. Girls accept force feeding (though apparently with some

Downloaded by [Universite Laval] at 06:01 03 March 2015

192 C. M. Cassidy

Figure 4. John and Greg Rice, owners of Think Big, Inc. of West Palm Beach, Florida. Photo reproduced through the courtesy of Halsey Publishing Co., publishers of Delta Air Lines' Sky magazine; and Think Big, Inc.

resistance) because they believe that they must be fat to attract a man, and because everyone believes that puberty comes sooner to the fat. Girls are fed until they are so large that they can do no work and must simply lie in their tents, again proving the father's wealthy because he can maintain a nonproductive family member. Adult women recognize the physical disadvantages of fat—breathlessness, inability to move, difficulty in childbirth—but the custom is maintained for its social benefits.

Downloaded by [Universite Laval] at 06:01 03 March 2015

The Good Body: When Big is Better 193 Fat, Beauty and Fashion. Sometimes to be beautiful and/or fashionable one must be corpulent, at least locally. The Western ideal of feminine beauty in the 1950s featured large breasts, in the early twentieth century a rounded fat-filled throat. In the late nineteenth century heavy hips and thighs were desirable, and Charles Darwin is said to have remarked with delight on the steatopygia of African Hottentot women (Rudolfsky 1974). Judging by the popularity of the bustle in clothing styles of the time, his admiration may have been widely shared. A preference for large hips in women is common worldwide, and Ford and Beach (1951) recorded only one (out of 250) tribal societies that idealized narrow hips. Bollig describes attitudes on the Micronesian island of Truk: "corpulent persons are rare among men, but numerous among the younger women and girls. It is considered to be a sign of beauty" (1927:43). In Europe, generalized feminine corpulence was associated with beauty and fashion from (at least) the seventeenth through nineteenth centuries (Ayers 1958; Bruch 1973). For example, artists selected corpulent models to portray characters symbolic of beauty, as the Three Graces or the Goddess of Beauty. Théophile Gautier, speaking of Ingres' task of painting Madame Moitessier (Figure 5), reigning beauty of mid-nineteenth century France, said, 'An artist's pencil was never entrusted the task of reproducing features more beautiful, more splendid, more superb, more Junoesque" (Rhagghianti 1968:75). Madame Moitessier's "soft, fleshy shoulders" were particularly attractive to her contemporaries; her dimpled knuckles and softly redundant chins provide further evidence of her enviable beauty. Just a few years earlier, BrillatSavarin (1755-1826), the gourmet and an early proponent of weight-loss diets, noted how plumpness was considered both healthy and charming among his contemporaries (Anderson 1889). Fat, Fertility and Health. Fashion is a secondary reason for becoming plump, but its link to the feminine and especially to female secondary sex characteristics, suggests its symbolic tie to fertility. Fatness and female fertility are also symbolically tied to the fertility of the earth and its "fatness" in producing crops (Dupire 1963; Leith-Ross 1939; Oxford English Dictionary 1971). The famous "fertility goddesses" of upper Paleolithic and Neolithic Europe are mute evidence of the attraction fat women held for artists of the far past. We can be certain of the link to fertility in the case of the goddess called the Mistress of Animals from Catal Huyuk, a Neolithic town in Turkey (Mellaart 1967). This goddess is excessively fat and is shown giving birth to twins; many such images were found at this archaeological site. In much of Africa and Oceania the association of fatness with fertility is clear and direct, for girls (and sometimes boys) enter "fattening houses" at puberty specifically to prepare them for marriage and reproduction. In the process they also become more beautiful and desirable, according to community standards. In Ibo and Ibibio (Nigeria) fatting houses girls are fed all sorts of good foods and prohibited work for weeks to years, depending upon how long the parents can afford to sumptuously feed a non-productive member of the family (Leith-Ross 1939; Meek 1925). Amaury Talbot, who observed fatting house practices in 1915, stated, "During this time they do no work, but are kept in one room, and are fed up and pampered in every way. The result is that they emerge, to the admiration of their adoring relatives, and of the townfolk at large, perfect mountains of flesh " (1915:38).

Downloaded by [Universite Laval] at 06:01 03 March 2015

194 C. M. Cassidy

Vigure 5. Madame Moitessier; Jean-Auguste-Dominique Ingres; National Gallery of Art, Washington; Samuel H. Kress Collection (Dated 1851).

Downloaded by [Universite Laval] at 06:01 03 March 2015

The Good Body: When Big is Better 195 Preparation for marriage among the Banyankole of East Africa begins about age eight when girls are sequestered, forbidden work, and given quantities of milk. The goal is to render the child so fat she can but waddle: "The fatter she grew the more beautiful she was considered and her condition was a marked contrast to that of the men, who were athletic and well-developed" (Roscoe 1923:116-117). Female members of the royal family vied with each other to see who could be fattest. Denise Paulme, recording initiation ceremonies among the Kissi of Upper Volta, also shows how the fattening procedure is associated with making the adolescent girl both beautiful and fertile (1952). De Garine and Koppert (in Counihan 1985) report that among the Massa of the Cameroons, wealthy boys are secluded and force-fed. Like the girls, as they gain weight they also gain in beauty, prestige and marriageability. Young women on Mangaia in Oceania (Marshall 1971) also enter fattening houses at puberty. A young woman with plenty of flesh and large hips is the cultural ideal, a "bed with a mattress," in contrast to her slenderer sister, a mere frame, a "bed without a mattress." The association of fatness with fertility ultimately belongs with health concerns, for it is empirically widely realized that the ill-fed woman has a poorer reproductive record than the well-fed woman. In biomédical terms, the custom may also be important to the extent that it helps change an undernourished child or adolescent into a relatively well-nourished young adult, a transformation that may spell the difference between success and failure at reproduction. The conceptual linkage of fat with health used to be common in Western nations. Both rickets and tuberculosis progress with weight-loss and thinness; treatment for both formerly included the provision of rich diets and something akin to force feeding (Beller 1977; Joffe 1943). Rickets is significant for the damage it does to the female pelvis, which leads to difficulty in childbirth, but recent evidence shows that even mild degrees of nonspecific undernutrition are also detrimental to the shape of the pelvic inlet and are associated with increased frequencies of childbirth difficulty and death (Angel 1976). As noted, recent studies indicate that both digestive and respiratory disease are aggravated by undernutrition, and associated with "asthénie" (or "ectomorphic") body shapes (Beller 1977; Scrimshaw, Taylor, and Gordon 1968; Negri 1988). Although these data do not mean that infections may be palliated or rickets prevented by overnutrition, "feeding well" would be a rational lay response to these disease threats. Besides protecting children against infections and nutritional disorders, fat would also provide an energy store on which the child could draw during times of food scarcity, or if ill. It is worth remembering that feeding a child well in times of scarcity is an ultimate in proof of parental concern. Fatness is also popularly linked with strength, another health issue. Marquesan Island (Oceania) men flatter a girl by calling her fat. Says Gregersen (1983:91), ". . . the male admirer who makes such a comment may flex the biceps of both arms to indicate the voluptuous chunkiness of the girl in question—not to indicate his own muscularity. Girls with heavy shoulders, hips, buttocks and legs are believed to have the most endurance and vitality during sex." Many societies categorize some foods as "fattening." These may or may not actually contain much fat or oil, but are considered most efficient in promoting

Downloaded by [Universite Laval] at 06:01 03 March 2015

296 C. M. Cassidy weight gain. Where fat is admired these foods are often the most desired of foods and are thought to ensure good health (e.g., Zulu of Africa [Cassell 1957]; Chimbu of New Guinea [Whiteman 1965]; Eskimo of North America [by their own account in poetry, Rothenberg 1972]). David Malo, a nineteenth century Hawaiian, wrote that one who eats a good food, such as sweet potato ". . . is plump, and his flesh is clean and fair" (Hardy et al. 1965). Even where fat is not desired, these foods retain their aura of delightfulness and may be difficult to eschew. In a recent study, U.S. university students explained that even though ice cream, chocolate, pasta, cake, and pizza were fattening they were too delicious to give up (Cassidy and Sobal 1986). Fat, Wealth and Power. In men, fatness signals strength and social power more often than fertility or beauty. Rulers have traditionally combined power, imposing raiment, and fat. There are many familiar modern and historical examples from Europe, Africa, and Japan. Malay kings are reported to have been fat and special exercises and massages were designed to keep them healthy (Bruch 1973). In Polynesia to be fat was a sign of the greatest distinction. The admirable corpulence of Hawaiian royalty of the nineteenth century indicated both their individual freedom from want and also symbolized the lack of want of their subjects (Stevens and Oleson 1894). The nobility, bourgeoisie, middle and laboring classes have also traditionally used fatness as evidence of wealth. Many examples exist, but consider Helena Fourment, the wife of Peter Paul Rubens—wealthy, acclaimed a great beauty, so perfect she was chosen to portray all Three Graces, and so globally rotund that her form of fatness is today glossed as "Rubenesque" in medical texts. Brillat-Savarin struggled to lose weight and finally satisfied himself, saying, "I conquered [my stomach] by confining it to the limit of the imposing" (Anderson 1889:178). Most of the American "robber barons" of the late nineteenth century consumed conspicuously and were conspicuously fat (Ayers 1958; Bruch 1973; Sontag 1978); in a recent study, 4% of sampled Americans still associated the word "capitalism" with "fat men" (Szalay and Brent 1965). In much of West Africa and the Caribbean today, it is still a fine compliment to call a man "fat" for this word carries connotations of physical prowess, social and economic success (Gordon Gibbons, personal communication). In South Africa, Cloete (1953:111) states that among black Africans working for whites, a heart's desire is "fat above all things. To be fat himself, to have a fat wife and fat children and fat cattle." Cloete says that the Africans explain this desire as the association of fatness with abundance and wealth. Pflanz (1963) reported that German upper class men not only gain weight as they acceed to positions of power, but that they consciously associate physical bigness with the possession of power. In the U.S., half of obese college men sampled felt that their weight was normal, while in England a majority of overweight men felt that they were "suitable" and had no intention of losing weight (Miller et al. 1980). Harry Golden, the American Jewish author, quotes his mother as having said, "In America, the fat man is the boss and the skinny man is the bookkeeper" (1963:15). The tendency of Jewish mothers to encourage their children to eat themselves into corpulence has been exaggerated into stereotype. The same attitude was recorded by Bruch (1940) in New York City among immigrant mothers from many different

The Good Body: When Big is Better 197

Downloaded by [Universite Laval] at 06:01 03 March 2015

backgrounds. These mothers wanted their children plump as proof of success and freedom from want. In my own Wisconsin childhood in the 1950s, recent immigrant mothers continued this attitude, signifying their maternal success by boasting as their sons grew into "husky" jeans. The following revealing passage is from the novel The Godfather (Puzo 1969:284). The various leaders of the organization are gathering from all over the United States, and the most important of them, from New York, have just entered the room: Tom Hagan was struck by how much more imposing, impressive, these five men were than the out-of-towners, the hicks. For one thing, the five New York Dons were in the Sicilian tradition, they were "men with a belly," meaning, figuratively, power and courage; and literally, physical flesh, as if the two went together, as indeed they seemed to have done in Sicily. The five New York Dons were stout, corpulent men with massive leonine heads, features on a large scale, fleshy imperial noses, thick mouths, heavy folded cheeks. They were not too well tailored or barbered; they had the look of no-nonsense busy men without vanity. [Puzo 1969:284; used with permission] Women also demonstrate their dominance through corpulence. Upper class white Moors of Mauritania have a saying: "To be a woman of quality, it is necessary to be a woman of quantity" (Abeille 1979:44). Queen Liliokalani and Princess Ruth of Hawaii, Marie de Medici of Italy, and Queen Victoria of England were all women of substance. The mistresses of George I of England (1660-1727) were morbidly obese, a state they sought because he liked them that way, but also because their flesh gave them the ultimate power—power over the king. Of the King's preferences (which he apparently did not share), Lord Chesterfield (1694-1773) said, "No woman came amiss to him if they were very willing and very fat. The standard of his Majesty's taste made all those ladies who aspired to his favour, and who were near the suitable size, strain and swell themselves like the frogs in the fable to rival the bulk and dignity of the ox. Some succeeded, some burst" (Tabori 1966:266). A big man usually needs a big woman to complete the picture of influence. Powdermaker (1960) records the following song from the Copperbelt of Zimbabwe, sung by the young men: "Hullo, Mama, the beautiful one, let us go to the town/ You will be very fat, you girl, if you stay with me." Here again is a linkage between beauty, fat, and maternity—for the woman is called "Mama" even though she is yet a girlfriend. But the man is powerful because his success will bring her all these symbols of power and of course the honor will redound on him as well. In Mali, noble Tamasheq people reportedly maximize prestige over child survival, the women becoming so fat that they cannot adequately care for their own children (Hilderbrand et al. 1985:199). For the Tamasheq ". . . animals and Bella [slaves] are the two principal forms of wealth and the two become symbolized in fat, overfed, noble women. To have a very fat wife or daughter indicates that a man has first, enough surplus milk and butter (and therefore cows) to allow her to be force-fed, and second, enough Bella so that she need do no domestic labor" (Hilderbrand et al. 1985:193). Finally, perceptive psychiatrists have noted that many patients have difficulty losing weight because when large they feel like the center of attention, powerful, important and intimidating, but as they lose weight they feel they lose these social advantages (Glucksman 1972; Bruch 1973; Millman 1980).

198 C. M. Cassidy DOES THE SYMBOL TRANSLATE TO REAL POWER?

The foregoing describes why bigness can be idealized and preferred, but does not show—though it certainly suggests—that the symbolism "works" in real life. Thus we must ask, is the symbolism acted upon? Are there data that show that bigger bodies are found disproportionately among the more powerful? Do people who are larger rise in social power when their measured skills are no greater than those of smaller colleagues? Do people manipulate their bodies to make them bigger, and if so, do they say they are doing it to gain social advantage? Positive answers to all these questions indicate that when people can manage it, many choose to embody the symbolic link between bigness and power.

Downloaded by [Universite Laval] at 06:01 03 March 2015

Body Size and Social Class

Recalling that there are exceptions to every rule, it is nevertheless true that on a worldwide basis, people at the upper end of the social hierarchy tend to be bigger than people of other classes. It is hardly necessary to note that "upper class" or "upper socioeconomic status" is defined by above average income, education, and access to material and social goods, that is, by a differential of social power. The data in this section confirm that in the "real" world bigness and social power are linked. Stature. Numerous studies since the late eighteenth century have shown that upper class people, in every country, are taller than their compatriots from other classes (Amirhakimi 1974; Belmont et al. 1975; Boyd 1980; Fiawoo 1975; Floud 1983; Goldstein 1971; Hafez et al. 1981; Harrison et al. 1974; Janes 1974; Johnston et al. 1973; Peck and Vagero 1987; Rona et al. 1978; Rose and Marmot 1981; Walter et al. 1975). (Roberts et al. 1975, however, found no class differences in their Northumberland sample.) The difference in stature can amount to several inches between the highest and lowest groups (Dann and Roberts 1976; Amirhakimi 1974). The differences arise from before birth (Sheth and Merchant 1972), and are usually set by age 5 or 6 (Smith et al. 1980; Stunkard et al. 1972). As noted above, tallness is linked with other desirable traits.10 Since tallness characterizes the upper class, these traits also characterize the upper class and give them a continuing biological and social advantage. For example, in various studies upper class children have been shown to have bigger heads (De Sigueira et al. 1981; Ounsted et al. 1982), to have more muscle (Rea 1971), to mature earlier (Billewicz et al. 1981; Hafez et al. 1981), to be healthier and do better on intelligence tests (Dann and Roberts 1976; Weinberg et al. 1974), and to lose stature more slowly as they age than lower class people (Himes and Mueller 1977). Upper class children have mothers who are tall as well (Goldstein 1971). Body Weight. In most of the non-Western world, upper class people are heavier than their lower class compatriots. This has been reported, for example, for Iran (Amirhakimi 1974), India (Gour and Gupta in Silverstone 1970; Sibert et al. 1978), Nepal (Farquharson 1976), black Africa in general (Hiernaux 1970), Nigeria (Janes 1974; Rea 1971), Ghana (Fiawoo 1975), Brazil (Arteaga et al. 1982; De Sigueira et al. 1981), Guatemala (Johnston et al. 1973) and Haití (Meredith 1987). In a detailed

Downloaded by [Universite Laval] at 06:01 03 March 2015

The Good Body: When Big is Better 199 review of 144 studies, Sobal and Stunkard (1989) showed that in 86-91% of studies in "developing" countries, the prevalence of "obesity" (what I call fatness) was directly associated with class for men, women and children. In no case were upper class people thinner than those in the lower classes. McGarvey et al. (1989) and Bindon and Baker (1985) show that Samoan adults get fatter as they take on modern jobs; these are more sedentary, but also, they are more prestigious. An exception to this tendency was recorded by Hilderbrand et al. (1985) for noble Malians where toddlers and older boys are usually underweight while older girls are overweight. Moving to the Western world, we find that the same positive association of weight with class held well into the twentieth century (Boyd 1980) and continues to hold for certain ethnic groups, including among many black Americans (Styles 1980), Puerto Ricans (Massara 1989; Massara and Stunkard 1979), native Americans (Garb, Garb, and Stunkard 1975) and some Jewish Americans (Bruch 1973). However, today, upper class (especially white) children and adults tend to be thinner than children of other classes (Ashwell and Etchell 1974; Goldblatt et al. 1965; Heald 1972; Hitchcock et al. 1986; Khosla and Lowe 1972; Moore et al. 1962; Rolland-Cachera and Bellisle 1986; Rose and Marmot 1981; Silverstone 1970; Sobal and Stunkard 1989). In social terms this indicates that the meaning of body weight has changed, for certainly food sufficiency among the wealthy has not fallen off. Dann and Roberts (1976) could virtually date the switch for British boys: in 1949 indigent boys were shorter and lighter than Class I boys, but by 1959 indigent boys were still snorter but now heavier than Class I boys; that is, upper class boys now physically matched the emerging societal ideal linking thinness with upperclassness. However, this relationship is not consistent across populations, especially for males. Thus, though Sobal and Stunkard (1989) found that the prevalence of obesity was low in higher socioeconomic classes in 75% of European and 93% of North American samples of women, this was only true in 58% of European male samples and in 44% of U.S. male samples. Further, there was a high prevalence of obesity in upper socioeconomic classes in 21% of European male samples and in 44% of U.S. male samples.11 Robbins and Gaulin (1988) note that while better off Texan white women were thinner than poorer Mexican age-mates, better off Texan men were fatter than poorer Mexican men. The HANES survey showed that middle-aged white males with incomes above the poverty level were the most portly in the nation (Lowenstein 1978). Garn and colleagues (1977) showed that men with 12 years or more of schooling had fatfolds that average 10% thicker than those of men with 8 years or less of schooling. In each case, weight was maximal in middle age, what one would expect biologically, and also—probably not coincidentally—at the age when most men attain their greatest occupational and economic power. Verghese et al. (1969) report that middle class black American children are heavier than lower class black children. Data from Garn and colleagues (1981) showing that upper SES white boys were fatter until puberty when they became thinner than lower SES boys suggests that the biological advantage of superior weight may continue to act in childhood, but is replaced by the social advantage of slenderness in adolescence, at least among whites. Drewnowski and Yee (1987) found that 90% of American boys were dissatisfied with their weights, the same number as among

200 C. M. Cassidy girls, but whereas all the girls wanted to weigh less, half the boys wanted to weigh more. Dornbusch et al. (1984) found that boys enjoyed gaining weight at puberty because they interpreted the weight gain as one of putting on muscle. The evidence of mixed prevalence among males suggests that mixed preference patterns exist. Though some workers have argued that men "ignore" their bodies or have no preference patterns, evidence quoted above suggests men do care, but some conform to the traditional pattern of preferring fat, while others have accepted the newer pattern. In sum, data on men suggests that fatness among U.S. males who are not lower class is more socially acceptable than it is among women who are not lower class. Further research could examine this hypothesis and clarify these points.

Downloaded by [Universite Laval] at 06:01 03 March 2015

Body Size and Social Mobility

Economic Advantages of Bigness. Not only are bigger people differentially distributed to favor the upper classes, but at least in the U.S., bigger people—as long as they are big in the right way—are better rewarded for their labor, thus gaining an opportunity to rise in the social hierarchy. Studies quoted in Frieze, Olson, and Good (1990) showed that taller businessmen were more often hired and received slightly higher starting salaries. These authors analyzed a large sample of business people and calculated that taller men earned approximately $600 more per inch of height compared to equally educated and equally capable shorter colleagues. On the other hand, businessmen were penalized for excess weight. Starting salaries for men with Body Mass Indices (BMIs) over 28 were $3000 lower than those of slenderer men. After being in the job for several years, overweight men had salaries $4000 lower than slenderer colleagues. For women, height and weight did not correlate significantly with income, though class-of-origin did, and the researchers noted that income differentials for height nearly reached statistical significance. Thus taller women again gain an economic advantage. In other occupations different rules may hold, and more research is needed. Bray (1976) and Lowenstein (1978) both report a positive correlation of income and obesity in men, but the State of Maryland was forced to deal with antidiscrimination suits brought by workers who claimed they were not hired or were underpaid only because they were considered obese (Tucker 1980). The New York Times (4/9/87) reported that it costs more to be unusually tall. . . by about $1200/year. By Frieze, Olson, and Good's (1990) calculations, this cost is easily encompassed by superior earning power. The Effort To Get Big. Further evidence that the symbol is acted upon consists in data showing that people try to modify their bodies to match social ideals. We know that many adults wish they were taller, exercise and take supplements or even steroids to increase their muscle mass, and diet to increase or decrease their fat weight. But more convincing is evidence that parents consciously and purposefully try to modify the shapes of their children in order to make them match societal ideals and "get a good start in life." The fatting house examples noted above are non-

Downloaded by [Universite Laval] at 06:01 03 March 2015

The Good Body: When Big is Better 201 Western examples. In the U.S., Blank and Alexander (nd) showed that one of the strongest predictors of fatness in infants was the mother's preference for chubby babies; the other was the mother's own bulkiness. Bryant (1977) describes how Puerto Rican, Cuban and Anglo mothers in her sample had contests to determine whose baby was the fattest, and whose the fastest growing. The 42% who wanted fat babies associated fatness with good health, cuteness, and good maternal care. Puerto Rican and Anglo mothers also associated fatness with wealth. Only 23% of mothers wanted slender babies. Bryant showed that while the opinions of kin and friend networks did not directly succeed in modifying mother's feeding patterns, obese children who were put on diets by medical doctors never lost weight unless the friend and kin networks agreed that the child was overweight.12 Fishman (1986) found that traditional Vietnamese families living in Philadelphia idealized thin and small children. By consciously following traditional feeding patterns that focused on the needs and wants of adults, grandmothers modeled grandchildren into body norms typical of rural Vietnam (an example of an Asian small-loving pattern playing itself out). Meanwhile, Westernizing mothers in families lacking a grandmother desired that their children should become tall and fat and resemble white Americans. Their feeding practices—child focused, and emphasizing milk and other protein foods—indeed produced taller and fatter children. Says Fishman: "In essence, during these most sensitive years in children's growth, parents can shape a child to suit their concept of what a child should look like" (1986:253). American parents will make large economic sacrifices to make their children grow taller. Since artificial growth hormone became available, parents of normal short children have been willing not only to subject their children to potentially dangerous treatment, but also to pay up to $30,000 per year to add a few inches to the child's final height. Why? "The demand for hormone reflects pervasive values in American society . . . In studies of groups as diverse as university professors, clerics and businessmen, researchers have found that height is a predictor of success" (Okie 1988:A1). In cultural terms, such behavior is rational, since studies show that social mobility correlates positively with large body size. In the West, being taller helps, though being fatter may hinder. Tanner (1977) shows that the taller members, even of one family, tend to rise in social class while the shorter fall. Moore et al. (1962) noted that 22% of the downwardly mobile are obese, while only 12% of the upwardly mobile are obese. THE "THIN" ANOMALY

We see, then, a pattern in which tallness is desired and differentially associated with social power essentially worldwide. Similarly, fat is desired by people in most of the world, including, apparently, by a significant number of U.S. upper class men, and again, fat is associated with the trappings of social power. However, in what amounts to a paradox if our argument so far has been accurate, thin—which cannot project an image of bulky power—is desired by most upper and middle class Western women, many upper class European men, and by another large

Downloaded by [Universite Laval] at 06:01 03 March 2015

202 C. M. Cassidy proportion of American men. Does the "thin" anomaly cancel the argument that big has cultural survival value? Several authors have explored this issue. Some say the desire to be thin has no survival value—that it is a cultural aberration derived from Western Puritanical attitudes that disvalue the body, and demand the repression of appetites, both for food and for sex (see review in Counihan 1985). It applies particularly to women because Western religions fear female sexuality, want to maintain the woman either in a préadolescent (prereproductive) condition, or to keep her so "frail and helpless" as to constitute no competition for men. Counihan (1988) argues that one characteristic of Western male dominance is to link normal female fecundity and its signal, fattiness, with a negative morality, such that when one is fat one is "immoral," while when one is thin, one is "in control." Allon (1973; Sobal 1984b) argues that where fat is disapproved for men it is classified as a disease—not his fault—while for women it is classified as a sin or a crime—her fault. Certainly studies have shown that American women who diet are deeply concerned with issues of "self-control" and link eating with lack of control (Counihan 1988, 1990; Sobal and Stunkard 1989), and weight gain and corpulence with "greed" (Counihan 1990). Medical and psychological models—none of them culture-free, most of them enamored of the thin-is-chic-is-healthy ethic—encourage such negativity. Even though being thin is an upper class phenomenon, most such models assume all people would wish to emulate upper class fashions.13 These models run into difficulty because, despite the strong Western correlations of thin with upward mobility, corpulence remains common. There are many contributing explanatory factors, from the hereditary to the pathological. Medical professionals like to speak of an "epidemic of obesity," but in our context it is appropriate to ask if it may not be more accurate to talk about fatness, a social phenomenon. That is, even though it is clear that upper class Western people idealize slenderness, especially among women, it appears that non-upper-class people operate according to other norms which idealize body massiveness. Thus, apart from noting that "obesity" in working class people is notoriously difficult to "cure,"14 is there any evidence showing that some people maintain their bigness against considerable social pressure? The answer is yes. There exists a popular literature written by and for fat admirers (Chemin 1981; Friedman 1974; Goode 1980; Goode and Preissler 1982, 1983; Grosswirth 1971; Schwartz 1987). Patten and Kelly (1986) found that rural Minnesota teens average heavier than urban teens, but are generally satisfied with their shapes. Trouble occurs only when urban physicians insist that their fat is dysfunctional. The conflict that is then set up between the two norm patterns seems to be so severe that it sends many rural teens into serious episodes of depression. Davis (1986) worked in a Newfoundland fishing community with women nearly all of whom would be biomedically defined as obese. These women knew that they didn't look "modern," and even set up a community-wide weight loss scheme featuring diet and exercise. Despite enthusiasm, the scheme soon foundered. Davis explains that the women enjoyed the scheme mainly for its sociality, and quickly realized that they had no real interest in resembling city women . . . strangers not like and not relevant to themselves.

The Good Body: When Big is Better 203 In short, there is no necessary reason to assume that all people will want to match upper class body fashions. Other classes may have their own fashions, and their own reasons, and cling to them quite as tenaciously as do the upper class who wish all the "obese" would slenderize "for their health." Allon (1973) argues that some lower class people use their fat as a rebellious power play, thumbing, so to speak, not merely their noses but their entire bodies, at the upper class ethic. Nevertheless, the socioeconomic reversal that makes thin desirable in Western urban settings is real, and needs explaining. First, be it noted, thin upper class women are not, in fact, small. Like upper class men, they are taller than the population norm, and many use recreational exercise to increase their muscle mass. Thus

Downloaded by [Universite Laval] at 06:01 03 March 2015

these women actually conform to the pattern that links bigness and power, and have

merely added an interesting twist. How has thinness, symbolic of want and poverty in much of the world, been redirected to represent abundance and wealth? The answer, I think, echoed by Robbins and Gaulin (1988) and Brown and Konner (1987), is that thinness is socially adaptive among those whose food supply is stable and whose children nearly always survive for the same reasons that fatness is adaptive under the opposite circumstances. The wealthy in clean food-stable settings are able to switch the bodily metaphor of success from fat to thin because they need not worry about famine and do not fear infectious disease. They can go beyond the message of fat—"Look how much abundance I have"—to a more etheric model—"I'm so safe I can afford to ignore abundance!" This is still, clearly, a power message, for it makes cultural and biological sense only for those so immersed in abundance that they can ignore survival issues that continue to haunt most human populations. In short, there is no real anomaly. Western thin upper class people conform to the model linking bigness and power first because they are actually big, if not fat, and second because they continue to use body symbolism to demonstrate freedom from want.

THE SPACE IN THE MIDDLE

At the beginning of this paper I asked why people seem so relatively uninterested in body proportions that approach the norm. Growth studies indicate that fewer societies show a lack of linkage of body size to social class than show linkage (cf. Guggenheim et al. 1973; Hoffmans et al. 1988; Sobal and Stunkard 1989). Ethnographic studies similarly indicate that fewer societies idealize the middle of the distribution than its two extremes. One of the rare historical examples of a society that idealized something close to the middle of the distribution—that is, balanced body proportions—is that of the classical Greeks. Their attitude was not shared by their contemporaries. Gregersen, quoting Charles-Picard, notes that their neighbors preferred dignity and wealth to strength and athletic prowess, and "chose to cultívate a portly figure and to cover themselves in ample robes rather than follow the Greek ideals of muscular symmetry and heroic nudity" (1983:93). Various typological schemes purporting to describe the true range of human

Downloaded by [Universite Laval] at 06:01 03 March 2015

204 C. M. Cassidy shape have actually described—and judged—various idealized extremes (cf. Gregersen 1983:70 ff). Among the most interesting of these was the work of W. H. Sheldon and colleagues in the middle of this century. They distinguished endomorphic (primacy of fat), mesomorphic (primacy of muscles) and ectomorphic (primacy of bones) body components and argued that each person consists of a more or less balanced combination of the three. They linked body types with personality, naming four ideal—but humanly impossible—types, the Dionysian (7-7-1), the Promethean/Devil (1-7-7), the Christus (7-1-7), and the perfect, Zeus or "Mr. G" (God), the 7-7-7. Sheldon noted that these could be ideals only in a masculine cultural setting. "We are already recovering from the collapse of the juvenile plan of building a moral philosophy on the idea of the pre-existence of the perfect 7-7-7 somewhere. . . . Our next really potent religion . . . will be one resting on the principle of sustained balance between the primary components of temperament" (Sheldon et al. 1949:91). They say that we will build the next cultural world on the ideal of 4.5-4.5-4.5—"that would be a superhuman just barely beyond the reach of the most fully and roundly developed among us" (Sheldon et al. 1949:91). So why do people prefer extremes? Darwin argues that people admire and try to exaggerate the physical characteristics that they are used to (Gregersen 1983:83). Robbins and Gaulin (1988) suggest that people desire what enhances survival. The studies quoted above do suggest that people slightly out of the norm—taller, fatter—have superior viability in most settings. This seems to go against the biologically adaptive grain, the one that argues that the middle of the distribution is probably the most viable. On the other hand, as culture-carrying animals, the ability to match one's body to one's society's symbolism may be what is really adaptive. Add

to this the fact that the extremes are well differentiated, easy to identify, and not too easy to achieve, and we have a powerful construct, always present, always visible, able to show cultural meaning at every moment. Physical bigness is an extreme that both symbolizes superiority and is biologically and socially linked to survival. That is why bigness is popular and, at least in the social sense, is usually "better."

SUMMARY

This paper has explored the question of whether bigger is better from a biocultural point of view. From that perspective I believe that the answer, in most societies, is "yes." Bigness symbolizes skill at survival, the ultimate form of power. However, bigness is a complex concept comprising tallness, bonyness, muscularity, and fattiness. Most ethnographic and sociological data deal with tall and fat. Worldwide, most people seem to want both forms of bigness (as well as muscularity), and try to achieve them. Those who succeed are disproportionately among the society's more socially powerful. In the West, now well into its second century of food security, the fascination with power and the body has not waned, but has been redefined. Upper class people have discovered that being thin in the midst of abundance—as long as one is also tall and muscular—can also project the appropriate message, and bring with it, at least in urban settings, such social boons as upward mobility.

The Good Body: When Big is Better

205

Downloaded by [Universite Laval] at 06:01 03 March 2015

NOTES 1. Not all, of course! For example, small slenderness is idealized, especially for non-working and upper-class women, in some traditional parts of Asia. 2. Excerpt from article reporting a dinner between U.S. President Bush and Philippine President Aquino, Washington Post Newspaper 11/9/89: " 'Yes, Mr. President,' Corazon Aquino said when her turn came, 'We have many things in common. Unfortunately, height is not one of them.' The crowd laughed appreciatively. It was clear the diminutive president did not have a Napoleonic complex." 3. By "viable" I mean an organism that competes better in its environment by having higher intelligence, better health, and/or greater success at reproduction. 4. There are also disadvantages to tallness and heaviness, mainly at the extreme ends of the distributions. These tend to be associated with chronic disease and thus have less reproductive significance. See references in National Research Council 1989 and the literature on obesity. 5. This paper focuses on "power over" or dominance relationships. Those who enjoy "power with" or cooperative relationships also have material and symbolic means of showing it which do not necessarily employ the "bigness" symbol. 6. Phrase coined by Thorstein Veblen in 1899 in The Theory of the Leisure Class. 7. It can, of course, also provoke less desirable responses, as of risability, or jealousy, fear, or morally loaded accusations of greed or unfairness. Granted these dangers—no good is unmarred—many people still seek power and its trappings. 8. A reader commented that food is not scarce in our society. Granted, but money to buy food often is scarce—and most Americans depend on the grocery store, hence money, for their food supply. 9. Distinctive pattern in which fat forms heavily over buttocks and hips, with relatively little elsewhere. 10. The earlier section noted studies of stature that found tallness linked to other advantages; this section confirms the significance of those findings by examining their reverse, studies of advantages that turn out to be linked to tallness. 11. In the remaining minority of samples there was no class association to body weight. Others have also claimed insignificant links of body size to class, including Guggenheim et al. (1973); Whitelaw (1971); Rimm and Rimm (1974). 12. Peer groups' attitudes are pivotal: Weight gain in marriage is best predicted by spousal attitudes (Sobal 1984a, and this issue). Body image abnormality is absent in obese Americans whose peer group approves (Stunkard and Mendelson 1967). 13. Length of time in U.S. correlates with thin preference, with fourth generation white Americans liking it most (Moore et al. 1962). This may be due to acculturation; equally it may be partially due to biological factors since early immigrants were of British background and were slender while later immigrants from Germanic and Mediterranean backgrounds were stockier. 14. Hunt (1972) describes genetic evidence linking massiveness (and bodily strength) with being a laborer; since manual work is traditionally defined as non-upper-class, here is a biological link to massiveness among the lower middle class.

REFERENCES CITED Abeille, B. 1979 A Study of Female Life in Mauritania. Washington, DC: Office of Women in Development. Agency for International Development. Adams, L. L., R. E. LaPorte, K. A. Matthews, T. J. Orchard, and L. H. Kuller 1986 Blood Pressure Determinants in a Middle-class Black Population: The University of Pittsburgh Experience. Preventive Medicine 15:232-243. Allon, N. 1973 The Stigma of Overweight in Everyday Life. In Obesity in Perspective. G. A. Bray, ed. Pp. 83102. Washington, DC: DHEW Public 75-708. Amirhakimi, G. H. 1974 Growth From Birth to Two Years of Rich Urban and Poor Rural Iranian Children Compared with Western Norms. Annals of Human Biology 1:427-442.

Downloaded by [Universite Laval] at 06:01 03 March 2015

206

C. M. Cassidy

Anderson, R. E. 1889 Gastronomy as a Fine Art or The Science of Good Living, a translation of the "Physiologie du Gout" of Brillat-Savarin. London: Chatto & Windus. Angel, J. L. 1976 Colonial to Modern Skeletal Change in the USA. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 45:723-735. Arteaga, H., J. E. Dos Santos, and J. E. Durra de Oliveira 1982 Obesity Among Schoolchildren of Different Socioeconomic Levels in a Developing Country. International Journal of Obesity 6:291-297. Ashwell, M., and L. Etchell 1974 Attitude of the Individual to his own Body Weight. British Journal of Preventive and Social Medicine 28:127-132. Ayers, W. M. 1958 Changing Attitudes Toward Overweight and Reducing. Journal of the American Dietetic Association 34:23-29. Baird, D. 1974 The Epidemiology of Low Birth Weight: Changes in Incidence in Aberdeen 1948-72. Journal of Biosocial Science 6:323-341. Barrett, D. E., and D. Frank 1987 The Effects of Undernutrition on Children's Behavior. New York: Gordon and Breach. Béller, A. S. 1977 Fat and Thin, a Natural History of Obesity. New York: McGraw-Hill. Belmont, L., Z. A. Stein, and M. W. Susser 1975 Comparison of Association of Birth Order with Intelligence Test Score and Height. Nature 255:54-56. Billewicz, W. Z., H. M. Fellowes, and A. M. Thomson 1981 Pubertal Changes in Boys and Girls in Newcastle upon Tyne. Annals of Human Biology 8: 201-209. Bindon, J., and P. T. Baker 1985 Modernization, Migration and Obesity Among Samoan Adults. Annals of Human Biology 12:67-76. Blank, J. J., and M. A. Alexander n.d. Knowledge, Feeding Practices and Values Related to Obesity in Mexican American Preschool Children. Unpublished manuscript. Bolin, A. 1989 The Gendered Body. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Anthropological Association, Washington, DC. Bollig, L. 1927 Die Bewokner der Truk-Insein: Religion, Leben und Kurze Grammatik eines Mikronesiervolkes. Authropos—Ethnologische Bibliothek III(i):l-320. Boyd, E. 1980 Origins of the Study of Human Growth. Eugene, OR: University of Oregon Health Sciences Center Foundation. Bray, G. A. 1976 The Obese Patient. Major Problems in Internal Medicine. Vol. 9. Philadelphia: W. B. Saunders. Brown, P. J., and M. Konner 1987 An Anthropological Perspective on Obesity. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 499:29-46. Bruch,H. 1940 Obesity in Childhood III: Physiological and Psychologic Aspects of the Food Intake of Obese Children. American Journal of Diseases of Children 58:738-781. 1973 Eating Disorders: Obesity, Anorexia Nervosa, and the Person Within. New York: Basic Books. Bryant, C. A. 1977 The Impact of Kin, Friend and Neighbor Networks on Infantile Obesity. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Anthropological Association, Houston, TX. Burns, M. 1985 Napoleon Elevated. The Atlantic 256:14+, July.

Downloaded by [Universite Laval] at 06:01 03 March 2015

The Good Body: When Big is Better

207

Carovano, K. 1989 Survey of AIDS Education Programs. Monograph prepared for AIDSCOM, Academy for Educational Development, Washington D.C. Cassell, J. 1957 Social and Cultural Implications of Food and Food Habits. American Journal of Public Health 47:732-740. Cassidy, C. M., and J. Sobal 1986 Taxonomies of Fattening and Dieting Foods in the United States. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Anthropological Association, Philadelphia, PA. Chemin, K. 1981 The Obsession, Reflections on the Tyranny of Slenderness. New York: Harper & Row. Clement, F. J. 1974 Longitudinal and Cross-sectional Assessments of Age Change in Physical Strength as Related to Sex, Social Class, and Mental Ability. Journal of Gerontology 29:423-429. Cloete, S. 1953 I Speak for the African. Life Magazine 34:111+. Counihan, C. M. 1985 What Does it Mean to be Fat, Thin, and Female in the United States: A Review Essay. Food and Foodways 1:77-94. 1988 Food and Identity Conflict Among Female College Students. Unpublished manuscript. 1990 Food Rules, Gender and Morality in the United States. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Anthropological Association, New Orleans, LA. Dann, T. C , and D. F. Roberts 1976 Physique and Socio-economic Variables in University Girls. Journal of Biosocial Science 8:61-68. Davis, D. 1986 Changing Body Aesthetics: Exercise Fads in a Newfoundland Outport Community. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Anthropological Association, Philadelphia, PA. De Sigueira, A. A., J. De Andrade, P A. De Almeida 1981 [Weight, Height and Cephalic Perimeter of Brazilian Children of an Upper Social Class.] Revista Paulista de Medicina 97:58-61. Dornbusch, S. M., J. M. Carlsmith, E D. Duncan, R. T. Gross, et al. 1984 Sexual Maturation, Social Class and the Desire to be Thin Among Adolescent Females. Journal of Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrics 5:308-314. Drewnowski, A., and D. K. Yee 1987 Men and Body Image: Are Males Satisfied with Their Body Weight? Psychosomatic Medicine 49:626-634. Dupire, M. 1963 The Position of Women in a Pastoral Society. In Women in Tropical Africa. D. Paulme, ed. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. Dwyer, J. T., and J. Mayer 1970 Potential Dieters: Who Are They? Journal of the American Dietetic Association 56:510-514. Efiong E. I., and M. O. Banjoko 1975 The Obstetric Performance of Nigerian Primigravidae Aged 16 and Under. British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology 82:228-233. Essen, J., K. Fogelman, and J. Head 1978 Children's Housing and Their Health and Physical Development. Child: Care, Health and Development 4:357-369. Eveleth, P. B., and J. M. Tanner 1976 Worldwide Variation in Human Growth. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Farquharson, S. M. 1976 Growth Patterns and Nutrition in Nepali Children. Archives of Disease in Childhood 51:3-12. Fast, J. 1970 Body Language. New York: M. Evans & Co. Fiawoo, D. K. 1975 Physical Growth and the Social Environment: A West African Example. In Biosocial Interrelations in Population Adaptation. E. S. Watts, F. E. Johnston, and G. W. Lasker, eds. Pp. 353-366. The Hague: Mouton.

Downloaded by [Universite Laval] at 06:01 03 March 2015

208

C. M. Cassidy

Fishman, C. S. 1986 Vietnamese Families in Philadelphia, An Analysis of Household Food Decisions and the Nutritional Status of Vietnamese Women and Children Living in Philadelphia: 1980-1984. Doctoral dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Pennsylvania. Floud, R. 1983 A Tall Story?, The Standard of Living Debate. History Today 33:36-40. Ford, C. S., and F. A. Beach 1951 Patterns of Sexual Behavior. New York: Harper & Brothers. Ford, G., A. Rickards, W. H. Kitchen, M. M. Ryan, and J. V. Lissenden 1986 Relationship of Growth and Psychoneurologic Status of 2-Year-old Children of Birthweight 500-999 g. Early Human Development 13:329-37. French, A. R. 1988 The Patterns of Mammalian Hibernation. American Scientist 76:569-575. Friedman, A. I. 1974 Fat Can Be Beautiful, Stop Dieting, Start Living. New York: G. P Putnam's Sons. Frieze, I. H., J. E. Olson, and D. C. Good 1990 Perceived and Actual Discrimination in the Salaries of Male and Female Managers. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 20(l):46-67. Fung, K. P., H. Y. Ngan, and T. W. Wog 1988 Maternal Determinants of Birthweight in Normal Pregnancy. Australian Paediatrics Journal 24:184-185. Garb, J. L., J. R. Garb, and R. J. Stunkard 1975 Social Factors and Obesity in Navajo Children. Proceedings of the First International Congress on Obesity. Pp. 37-39. London: Newman. Garn, S. M., P. J. Hopkins, and A. S. Ryan 1981 Differential Fatness Gain of Low Income Boys and Girls. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 34:1465-1468. Garn, S. M., S. M. Bailey, R E. Cole, and I. T. T. Higgins 1977 Level of Education, Level of Income, and Level of Fatness in Adults. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 30:721-725. Garner, D. M., and E E. Garfinkel 1980 Cultural Expectations of Thinness in Women. Psychological Reports 47:483-491. Gerlini, G., S. Arachi, M. G. Gori, F Gloria, et al. 1986 Developmental Aspects of the Offspring of Diabetic Mothers. Acta Endocrinologica [Suppl] 277:150-155. Glucksman, M. L. 1972 Psychiatric Observations on Obesity. Advances in Psychosomatic Medicine 7:194-216. Goldblatt, E B., M. E. Moore, and A. J. Stunkard 1965 Social Factors in Obesity. Journal of the American Medical Association 192:1039-1044. Golden, H. 1963 Ess, Ess, Mein Kindt (Eat, Eat, My Child). New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons. Goldstein, H. 1971 Factors Influencing the Height of 7-Year-old Children—Results from the National Child Development Study. Human Biology 43:92-111. Goode, E. 1980 Why It's Okay to be Fat. LI Magazine, April 20. Goode, E., and J. Preissler 1982 Admirers of Fat Women. Medical Aspects of Human Sexuality 16:140-145. 1983 The Fat Admirer. Deviant Behavior: An Interdisciplinary Journal 4:175-202. Gregersen, E. 1983 Sexual Practices, The Story of Human Sexuality. New York: Franklin Watts. Grosswirth, M. 1971 Fat Pride, the Non-Diet Book for a More Attractive, Confident, Successful and Happier You. New York: Harper & Row. Guggenheim, K., R. Poznanski, and N. A. Kaufmann 1973 Body Build and Self-Perception in 13- and 14-year-old Israel Children and Their Relationship to Obesity. Israel Journal of Medical Sciences 9:120-128.

Downloaded by [Universite Laval] at 06:01 03 March 2015

The Good Body: When Big is Better 209 Hack, M., and N. Breslau 1986 Very Low Birth Weight Infants: Effects of Brain Growth During Infancy on Intelligence Quotient at 3 Years of Age. Pediatrics 77:196-202. Hafez, A. S., S. I. Salem, T. J. Cole, O. M. Galal, and A. Massoud 1981 Sexual Maturation and Growth Pattern in Egyptian Boys. Annals of Human Biology 8: 461-467. Hardy, E. S. C , et al. 1965 Ancient Hawaiian Civilization, revised ed. Rutland, VT: C. E. Tuttle Co. Harragan, B. 1987 Dear Betty Harragan [Advice Column]. Working Woman 12:46+, November. Harrison, G. A., et al. 1974 Psychometric, Personality and Anthropometric Variation in a Group of Oxfordshire Villages. Annals of Human Biology 1:365-381. Heald, F. E 1972 Natural History of Obesity. Advances in Psychosomatic Medicine 7:102-115. Hiernaux, J. 1970 Interpopulation Variation in Growth, With Special Reference to Sub-Saharan Africa. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development 35:74-77. Hilderbrand, K., A. G. Hill, S. Randall, and M-L. van den Eerenbeemt 1985 Child Mortality and Care of Children in Rural Mali. In Population, Health and Nutrition in the Sahel. A. G. Hull, ed. Pp. 184-207. London: K.P.I. Himes, J. H., and W. H. Mueller 1977 Age-associated Statural Loss and Socioeconomic Status. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society 25:171-174. Hitchcock, N. E., R. A. Mailer, and A. I. Gilmour 1986 Body Size of Young Australians Aged 5 to 16 Years. Medical Journal of Australia 20:368-372. Hoffmans, M. D., D. Kromhout, and C. De Lezenne Coulander 1988 The Impact of Body Mass Index of 78,612 18-year-old Dutch Men on 32-year Mortality from All Causes. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 41:749-56. Hunt, E. E., Jr. 1972 Epidemiologic Considerations. Advances in Psychosomatic Medicine 7:148-172. Janes, M. D. 1974 Physical Growth of Nigerian Yoruba Children. Tropical and Geographical Medicine 26:389398. Joffe, N. F. 1943 Food Habits of Selected Subcultures in the United States. Bulletin of the National Research Council 108:97-103. Johnston, E E., M. Borden, and R. B. MacVean 1973 Height, Weight, and Their Growth Velocities in Guatemalan Private School Children of High Socioeconomic Class. Human Biology 45:627-641. Kane, J. N. 1974 Facts About the Presidents. 3rd Edition. New York: H. W. Wilson Co. Keil, J. E., H. A. Tyroler, S. H. Sandifer, and E. Boyle, Jr. 1977 Hypertension: Effects of Social Class and Racial Admixture: The Results of a Cohort Study in the Black Population of Charleston, South Carolina. American Journal of Public Health 67: 639-643. Khosla, R., and C. R. Lowe 1972 Obesity and Smoking Habits by Social Class. British Journal of Preventive and Social Medicine 26:249-256. Knutzen, V. K., and D. A. Davey 1977 The Relationship Between Maternal Height and Weight at Birth and Perinatal Mortality. South African Medical Journal 51:672-675. Leith-Ross, J. 1939 African Women, A Study of Ibo of Nigeria. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. Lowenstein, E W. 1978 Some Preliminary Findings from the First Health and Nutrition Examination Survey in the USA Relating to Leanness and Obesity in Adults. Bibliotheca Nutritio et Dieta 26:154-158.

Downloaded by [Universite Laval] at 06:01 03 March 2015

210

C. M. Cassidy

Malina, R. M., and A. N. Zavaleta 1980 Secular Trend in the Stature and Weight of Mexican-American Children in Texas Between 1930 and 1970. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 52:453-461. Marshall, D. S. 1971 Sexual Behavior on Mangaia. In Human Sexual Behavior, Variations in the Ethnographic Spectrum. D. Marshall and R. C. Suggs, eds. Pp. 103-162. New York: Basic Books. Martins, D. Da Costa 1971 Height, Weight and Chest Circumference of Children of Different Ethnic Groups in Lourenco Marques, Mocambique, in 1965, with a Note on the Secular Trend. Human Biology 43:252-264. Massara, E. B. 1989 Que Gordita, A Study of Weight Among Women in a Puerto Rican Community. New York: AMS Press. Massara, E. B., and A. J. Stunkard 1979 A Method of Quantifying Cultural Ideals of Beauty and the Obese. International Journal of Obesity 3:149-152. McGarvey, S. T., J. Bindon, D. E. Crews, and D. E. Schendel 1989 Modernization and Adiposity: Causes and Consequences. In Human Population Biology: A Transdisciplinary Science. M. A. Little and J. Haas, eds. Pp. 263-279. New York: Oxford University Press. Meek, C. K. 1925 The Northern Tribes of Nigeria, Vol. I. London: Oxford University Press. Mellaart, J. 1967 Catal Huyuk, A Neolithic Town in Anatolia. New York: McGraw-Hill. Meredith, H. V. 1987 Variation in Body Stockiness Among and Within Ethnic Groups at Ages From Birth to Adulthood. Advances in Child Development and Behavior 20:1-60. Miller, T. M., J. G. Coffman, and R. A. Linke 1980 Survey on Body Image, Weight and Diet of College Students. Journal of the American Dietetic Association 77:561-566. Millman, M. 1980 Such a Pretty Face: Being Fat in America. New York: Norton. Moore, M. E., A. Stunkard, and L. Srole 1962 Obesity, Social Class, and Mental Illness. Journal of the American Medical Association 181:962-966. Moore, W. M. 1970 The Secular Trend in Physical Growth of Urban North American Negro Schoolchildren. Monographs of the Society for Research on Child Development 35:62-73. National Research Council 1989 Diet and Health, Implications for Reducing Chronic Disease Risk. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Neel, J. V 1962 Diabetes Mellitus: A "Thrifty" Genotype Rendered Detrimental by Progress. American Journal of Human Genetics 14:353-362. Negri, E., R. Pagano, A. Decarli, and C. La Vecchia 1988 Body Weight and the Prevalence of Chronic Diseases. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health 42:24-29. Neligan, G. A., and D. Prudham 1976 Family Factors Affecting Child Development. Archives of Disease in Childhood 51:853-858. Nickel, R. E., F. C. Bennett, and F. N. Lamson 1982 School Performance of Children with Birth Weights of 1000 Grams or Less. American Journal of the Diseases of Children 136:105-110. New York Times 1987 Added Cost of Being Tall. III 12:3, April 9. Okie, S. 1988 Children Reach for New Heights in a Study of Growth Hormone. Washington Post, October 31, Pp. A4+.

Downloaded by [Universite Laval] at 06:01 03 March 2015

The Good Body: When Big is Better

111

Ounsted, M., V. Moar, and A. Scott 1982 Growth in the First Four Years: III> The Effects of Maternal Factors Associated with Small-fordates and Large-for-dates Pregnancies. Early Human Development 7:347-356. Oxford English Dictionary, Compact Edition. 1971 New York: Oxford University Press. Patten, S., and J. Kelly 1986 American Adolescents: Attitudes and Behaviors Regarding Food and Eating. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Anthropological Association, Philadelphia, PA. Paulme, D. 1952 L'initiation des filles en pays Kissi (Haute Guinee). Conferencia Internacional dos Africanistas Occidentals, Lisbon, Pp. 303-331. Peck, A. M., and D. H. Vagero 1987 Adult Body Height and Childhood Socioeconomic Group in the Swedish Population. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health 41:333-337. Pflantz, M. 1963 Medizinisch-Soziologische Aspeckte de Fettsucht. Psyche 16:579-591 (Stuttgart). Pickering, R. M. 1987 Relative Risks of Low Birthweight in Scotland 1980-2. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health 41:133-139. Pollitt, E., and W. Mueller 1982 The Relation of Growth to Cognition in a Well-Nourished Preschool Population. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health 36:306-309. Powdermaker, H. 1960 An Anthropological Approach to the Problem of Obesity. Bulletin of the New York Academy of Medicine 36:286-295. Press, M. 1986 A Few Inches Taller, But at What Cost? Health, Washington Post, Nov. 18, p. 6. Price, C. E., R. J. Rona, and S. Chinn 1988 Height of Primary School Children and Parents' Perceptions of Food Intolerance. British Medical Journal [Clin Res] 18:1696-1699. Prokopec, M. 1970 Growth and Socioeconomic Environment. Monographs of the Society for Research on Child Development 35:55-60. Puzo, M. 1969 The Godfather. New York: G. E Putnam's Sons. P. 284. Ragghianti, C. L., ed. 1968 Great Museums of the World, National Gallery, Washington, D.C. Newsweek, Inc., N.Y. Rea, J. N. 1971 Social and Economic Influences on the Growth of Pre-school Children in Lagos. Human Biology 43:46-63. Richardson, B. D. 1977 Underweight—a Nutritional Risk? South African Medical Journal 51:42-48. Richardson, B. D., and M. Wadvalla 1977 The Bearing of Height, Weight and Skinfold Thickness on Obesity in Four South African Ethnic Groups of School Pupils of 17 Years. Tropical and Geographical Medicine 29:82-90. Richardson, S. A., H. Koller, M. Katz, and K. Albert 1978 The Contributions of Differing Degrees of Acute and Chronic Malnutrition to the Intellectual Development of Jamaican Boys. Early Human Development 2:163-170. Rimm, I. J., and A. A. Rimm 1974 Association Between Socioeconomic Status and Obesity in 59,556 Women. Preventive Medicine 3:543-572. Ritenbaugh, C. 1982 Obesity as a Culture-bound Syndrome. Culture, Medicine and Psychiatry 6:347-361. Robbins, C. J., and S. J. C. Gaulin 1988 Fat and Thin in Evolutionary Perspective. Paper presented to the Association for the Study of Food and Society, Bethesda, MD.

Downloaded by [Universite Laval] at 06:01 03 March 2015

212

C. M. Cassidy

Roberts, D. F., M. J. Danskin, and S. Chinn 1975 Menarcheal Age in Northumberland. Acta Paediatrica Scandinavica 64:845-852. Rolland-Cachera, M. F., and F. Bellisle 1986 No Correlation Between Adiposity and Food Intake: Why are Working Class Children Fatter? American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 44:779-787. Rona, R. J., and S. Chinn 1987 National Study of Health and Growth: Social and Biological Factors Associated with Weightfor-height and Triceps Skinfold of Children from Ethnic Groups in England. Annals of Human Biology 14:231-248. Rona, R. J., A. V Swan, and D. G. Altman 1978 Social Factors and Height of Primary Schoolchildren in England and Scotland. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health 32:147-154. Roscoe, J. 1923 The Banyankole. London: Cambridge University Press. Rose, G., and M. G. Marmot 1981 Social Class and Coronary Heart Disease. British Heart Journal 45:13-19. Rothenberg, J., ed. 1972 Shaking the Pumpkin. Traditional Poetry of the Indian. North America. Garden City, NY: Doubleday. Rudolfsky, B. 1974 The Unfashionable Human Body. Garden City, NY: Anchor Books. Satran, P. R. 1987 Short Power. Working Woman 12:98-100, June. Schwartz, H. 1987 Fat Is Good for You. Outlook, Washington Post Dl+. Scott, E. C., and C. J. Bajema 1982 Height, Weight and Fertility Among Participants of the Third Harvard Growth Study. Human Biology 54:501-516. Scrimshaw, N. S., C. E. Taylor, and J. E. Gordon 1968 Interactions of Nutrition and Infection. World Health Organization Monographs 57. Shaper, A. G., S. J. Pocock, M. Walker, N. M. Cohen, et al. 1981 British Regional Heart Study: Cardiovascular Risk Factors in Middle-aged Men in 24 Towns. British Medical Journal 283:179-186. Sheldon, W. H., E. M. Hartl, and E. McDermott 1949 Varieties of Delinquent Youth. An Introduction to Constitutional Psychiatry. New York: Harper & Bros. Sheth, P, and S. M. Merchant 1972 Fetal Growth in Two Socio-Economic Groups. Indian Pediatrics 9:650-657. Sibert, J. R., M. Jadhav, and S. G. Inbaraj 1978 Maternal and Fetal Nutrition in South India. British Medical Journal 1:1517-1518. Silverstone, J. T. 1970 Obesity and Social Class. Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics 18:226-230. Smith, A. M., S. Chinn, and R. J. Rona 1980 Social Factors and Height Gain of Primary Schoolchildren in England and Scotland. Annals of Human Biology 7:115-124. Sobal, J. 1984a Marriage, Obesity and Dieting. In Obesity and the Family. D. J. Kallen and M. B. Sussman, eds. Marriage and Family Review 7 (1/2):115-139. 1984b Group Dieting, the Stigma of Obesity, and Overweight Adolescents: Contributions of Natalie Allon to the Sociology of Obesity. In Obesity and the Family. D. J. Kallen and M. B. Sussman, eds. Marriage and Family Review 7 (1/2):9-20. Sobal, J., and A. J. Stunkard 1989 Socioeconomic Status and Obesity: A Review of the Literature. Psychological Bulletin 105: 260-275. Sontag, S. 1978 Illness as Metaphor. New York: Farrar, Straus & Giroux.

Downloaded by [Universite Laval] at 06:01 03 March 2015

The Good Body: When Big is Better

213

Stevens, J. L., and W. B. Oleson 1894 Picturesque Hawaii. Philadelphia: Hubbard. Stunkard, A., G. d'Aquili, S. Fox, R. D. L. Filion 1972 Influence of Social Class on Obesity and Thinness in Children. Journal of the American Medical Association 579-584. Stunkard, A., and M. Mendelson 1967 Obesity and the Body Image: I. Characteristics of Disturbance in the Body Image of Some Obese Persons. American Journal of Psychiatry 123:1296-1300. Styles, M. 1980 Soul, Black Women and Food. In A Women's Conflict: The Special Relationship Between Women and Food. J. R. Kaplan, ed. Pp. 161-176. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Szalay, L. B., and J. E. Brent 1965 Cultural Meanings and Values, A Method of Empirical Assessment. Washington, DC: The American University. Tabori, P. 1966 A Pictorial History of Love. London: Spring Books. Talbot, D. A. 1915 Women's Mysteries of a Primitive People, The Ibibios of Southern Nigeria. London: Cassell & Co. Tanner, J. S. 1977 Human Growth and Constitution. In Human Biology, An Introduction to Human Evolution, Variation, Growth and Ecology. 2nd Edition. Pp. 301-384. London. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Tucker, D. H. 1980 Report on Study of Weight and Size Discrimination. State of Maryland Commission on Human Relations, Baltimore, MD. Verghese, K. P., R. B. Scott, G. Teixeira, and A. D. Ferguson 1969 Physical Growth of North American Negro Children. Pediatrics 44:243-247. Walker, A. R., et al. 1978 Growth, School Attendance, and Serum Albumin Levels in South African Black Children of 10-12 years. Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene 81:2-8. Walker, A. R., and B. F. Walker 1977 Weight, Height and Triceps Skinfold in South African Black, Indian and White School Pupils of 18 Years. Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene 80:119-125. Walter, H., M. Fritz, and A. Welker 1975 [Studies on the Social Distribution of Body Height and Weight] Zeitschrift fur Morphogie und Anthropologie 67:6-18. Weinberg, W. A., S. G. Dietz, E. C. Penick, and W. H. McAlister 1974 Intelligence, Reading Achievement, Physical Size and Social Class. A Study of St. Louis Caucasian Boys Aged 8.0 to 9.6 Years, Attending Regular Schools. Journal of Pediatrics 85:482-489. Whitelaw, A. G. L. 1971 The Association of Social Class and Sibling Number with Skinfold Thickness in London Schoolboys. Human Biology 43:414-420. Whiteman, J. 1965 Customs and Beliefs Relating to Food, Nutrition and Health in the Chimbu Area. Tropical and Geographical Medicine 17:301-316. Wilson, D. M., et al. 1986 Growth and Intellectual Development. Pediatrics 78:646-650. Wilson, E. O. 1980 Sociobiology, The Abridged Edition. Belknap Press, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. World Health Organization 1978 A Growth Chart for International Use in Maternal and Child Health Care. Geneva: WHO.

The good body: when big is better.

An important cultural question is, "What is a 'good'--desirable, beautiful, impressive--body?" The answers are legion; here I examine why bigger bodie...
2MB Sizes 0 Downloads 0 Views