the uses of social media, or, another navel-gazing post
I’ve been thinking a lot about how social media is, by definition, social. I mean, obviously. But in some ways the implications of that have not been something I’ve really come to grips with. I get upset when I’m misunderstood on the internet, which, I mean, it’s the internet, that’s what happens here.
Obviously not the only thing that happens here, but to expect that I should be able to expound my ideas with such perfect clarity that no one will ever mistake my meaning is frankly absurd. Yes, I have thought I should be able to do that. And no, I’m not a perfectionist; I never do anything perfectly.
One of my main aims with this blog is to share ideas that are beyond the 101-type posts. There are plenty of people doing that already, with far greater patience and clarity than me. I have enormous respect for that work and the people doing it, but it’s not the work I’m interested in doing here. I want to get past the normal structures of thinking around this stuff to something new. When I talk about fat sexuality, I want to get at more than the same tired discourses of ‘body image’. I’m not interested in claiming that every body is beautiful, but looking at why beauty has come to stand in for worth, at what the idea of beauty does. I think fat acceptance is far more radical and fundamental than the vague, insipid blathering about ‘self esteem’ that goes on in ladymags and self-help books. To me, fat acceptance is about the management of bodies and the body politic. It’s about the production and regulation of identities and subject positions. It’s about class and gender and race and citizenship and labour and capitalism and power.
Actually, what I’m talking about is probably more fat studies than fat acceptance. While the two are by no means separate, there is a difference, and it’s that difference which draws me to academia despite the angst it sometimes (often!) induces. Trying to push past the normal structures of thinking is always going to be a difficult thing, but I think it’s necessary. More than that, I find it thrilling. New ways of thinking are exciting, dammit.
Ok, now I really have to finish up that paper I’m presenting tomorrow. (Yeah, it’s mostly angst at the moment).
First off, I want to say that i think the writing you are doing that goes far beyond “FA 101″ is very important – there are not enough people in the fatosphere doing what you are doing.
But I must say this part was unfortunate to read:
” I think fat acceptance is far more radical and fundamental than the vague, insipid blathering about ’self esteem’ that goes on in ladymags and self-help books”
Look: I’m not a fan of Oprah either and superficial ladymags and it all gets a little maudlin, but I will say that there is a place for very simple, streamlined “fat is beautiful” type of FA for the women that are dipping their toes into this for the first time. Also: not everyone is willing to get where you are willing to go, which seems to be from a very academic p.o.v. (which I think is great, because some people really are ready for something far more in-depth and your work is definitely important).
I couldn’t help but sense a bit of a “put down” in the above post.
“When I talk about fat sexuality, I want to get at more than the same tired discourses of ‘body image’.” And I think that’s great. But the “tired discourse” is not tired for everyone is and still needed and apropriate for others. Good luck on finding new ares of thought – this is extremely important. But the old ones still hold true for others and still have their place.
I take your point about my expression, but what I was getting at is, as I said, that fat acceptance is (to use a favourite academic phrase) always already far more radical and fundamental than ladymag ‘empowerment’, even in the very simple, streamlined incarnations.
I call ladymag empowerment tired and insipid because it is, in my estimation, primarily about helping people who are conventionally-beautiful-just-not-quite-perfectly-airbrushed-on-the-cover-of-Vogue realise that they are actually acceptable. It’s terrified of real diversity and couldn’t cope with an actual fat body it showed up dressed in Beth Ditto for Evans, which is why in ladymag land “every size” is only as big as an Australian 16.
I think that “fat is beautiful” type FA is a whole other thing, it’s not so much about learning to see the ways in which we align with beauty norms (although that can be a part of it), as it is about radically altering what counts as beautiful. Even if not everyone engaged in this type of FA intends it to be radical, I still think it goes far beyond what ladymags can even conceive of.
Rather than simply repeat ‘fat is beautiful’, I’m more interested in thinking about how we’ve come to be able to say that, what saying that affects, what it means to use the word ‘beautiful’ and why it seems so important in the first place. I really don’t think that asking those questions has to take anything away from anything (though I am starting to reconcile myself to the fact that it won’t always be seen that way).
[edited for typos]
Fair enough. I don’t think your p.o.v. is “taking away from anything” just wanted to acknowledge that “self-esteem” even in the most superficial “ladymag” way has its place for some people. I get that it needs to be taken farther than that for you – o.k.
Asking question is great, don’t have a problem with that. Probably my reply was more about the expression than anything.