The Em-body-ment of Society

The discourse surrounding health and the body is not a new phenomenon, since the Medieval ages, vices such as “gluttony” and “sloth” have been associated with “the downfall of man”. To an extent, this can still be seen in the analysis of contemporary discourse and the mediation of health and the body. It can be considered that the health and body of an individual is no longer just a personal concern, instead, this has become a concept that is very much the property of society. The body is now judged based on its perceived usefulness to society in terms of physical contributions for society. Often, those who deviate from the societal ideal weight- either under or over- are dehumanised by media representations.

Frequently, discussions about health and the body feature a significant focus on the statistical correlations between dietary issues and the risk of extreme and life-threatening illness, rather than any consideration of mental health or personal circumstances of the individual. This is almost always accompanied by the economic implications of these illnesses. The association of these two statistics cause concern to societies with ageing demographics as premature deaths from these illnesses, as well as the finances associated with this, will lower the amount of healthy able-bodied workers. It is in the interest of a capitalist society to claim the bodies of society, applying pressure through propaganda to enforce the ideology of the ‘useful body’. This has been enforced through years of media discourse surrounding the “ideal” body. 

Media and the body

Unfortunately, when mediated, those who deviate from societal norms in terms of their body, there is a focus on discipline and punishment, with an emphasis on public punishment. I’m sure you have seen tabloids and segments of talk shows where individuals, particularly women, who are shamed publicly for natural aspects of their body that deviate from ideal bodies. This is to reassert the power of authority over society, both as punishment for the “offender” in hopes they will take action to conform and sculpt a useful body, and as a warning for others to conform to avoid this punishment themselves. 

In shows such as Supersize vs Super Skinny, the mission was to rehabilitate those who commit “serious dietary crimes”. Within this show, the two participants- one who is “supersize” and one who is “superskinny”- swap their standard eating habits for a week in an isolated setting called “The Feeding Clinic”. Within this experiment, the participants are stripped and weighed in front of the rest of the participants, have their diets and lifestyles interrogated and have their food either restricted or forced to overeat. It is only at the end of the programme, where the participants have their final weigh-in, are able to present that with discipline, the audience can see that they have made efforts to become an individual with increased ability to contribute to society. Once again, there is little consideration or sympathy for the participants’ personal situations, if any. Instead, it is reinforced that because they did not have discipline, that was the sole reason for their problematic eating habits. This reinforces a dangerous culture around dieting, either drastically increasing or decreasing your nutrient intake, in the idea that discipline is the one thing required to gain this “ideal body” that has been created by societal expectations. 

The cost of health

Often in the discourse surrounding health and the body, there is a focus on the increased accessibility and lower cost of unhealthy food, frequently associating this with the increased risk of obesity for those who are lower class. However, the media seems to not want to even want to consider tackling this systematic issue. For example, Shows such as Eat Well for Less aim to help families who “overspend” on their food shop, by replacing branded options with supermarket own-brand options, and then teaching the families how to cook cheaper meal options. Although the premise appears to be a good way to demonstrate how over consumerism has become a staple in society, it typically deals with middle-class families who are trying to save money for luxuries such as holidays or a house extension. These shows don’t often tackle families that are in lower socioeconomic classes, and how these families already are having to buy cheaper options, but these options often are highly refined, energy-dense, high in dairy fats and meats. This demonstrates the systematic issue with health, as instead of addressing the high price of healthy alternatives, there is a focus on stigmatising people for buying, essentially, what they can afford.

This ideology is further reinforced by the presence of celebrity chefs. The role of these chefs is to become the expert source and establish “good and bad foods in the politicised realms of public health and nutrition”; Jamie Oliver is a good example of this. During his numerous campaigns, there is a focus on “good” foods and healthy eating, demonstrated by his Save With Jamie campaign in 2013, aimed to educate poorer families on ‘‘how to cook tasty, nutritious food on a budget’’. Although providing healthy budget-friendly alternatives, there is a clear misunderstanding from Oliver on how the dietary issues lower-class families have is not systematic. Instead, during a conversation with Martin Lewis, Oliver claims that “seven times out of ten, the poorest families in this country choose the most expensive way to hydrate and feed their families. The ready meals, the convenience foods”. This conversation appears to blame the families for their dietary issues, implying that it is a “choice” and a lack of discipline. Because of his celebrity status, statements such as that contribute to the ideology that poorer families are to blame for any health or body issues they may be associated with this. Additionally, in this same excerpt, Oliver discusses how those who eat unhealthily because of their financial situation often have luxuries, such as large televisions. This suggests that these families lack the discipline to spend their money effectively in order to eat more nutritiously, and therefore deserve to be punished for this by removing said luxuries that are often necessities in the current climate. 

Where are we now?

Although we appear to be long past shows such as Supersize vs Superskinny, and with a current body-positive mentality sweeping social media, it is clear that systemic issues that lead to health and body issues still remain. Luckily, figures like Jack Monroe have emerged to not only educate on how to eat well when in poverty and strict budgets, whilst educating and raising awareness of the systematic failures leading to this. But with influencer culture reigning supreme and the consistent and continued promotion of diet culture it’s clear that as a society we are far off the end of this discourse. Maybe one day the body will belong to the individual again.