Defining, Managing, and Dictating Children’s Bodies: Discourses of “Good” Food and the Politics of “Growing”
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Defining, Managing, and Dictating Children’s Bodies:Discourses of “Good” Food and the Politics of “Growing” Lauren Bosc (bio) Hodge, Deborah. Up We Grow! A Year in the Life of a Small, Local Farm. Photog. Brian Harris. Toronto: Kids, 2010. 32 pp. $16.95 hc. ISBN 1-55453-561-3. Print. Hodge, Deborah. Watch Me Grow! A Down-to-Earth Look at Growing Food in the City. Photog. Brian Harris. Toronto: Kids, 2011. 32 pp. $16.95 hc. ISBN 1-55453-618-4. Print. In the discourse regarding fat bodies and the construction of “obesity” and “overweight” signifiers, Deborah Lupton suggests that the increased focus on children’s bodies in relation to their size functions as an attempt to “regulate and manage” (42) children generally. In particular, the rhetoric of such governmental interventions as mandatory educational curricula and school lunch programs implemented in elementary and junior high schools has shifted from a focus on fitness and “healthy” food options to a focus on weight control (42). This shift is also apparent in national media outlets such as the Globe and Mail, which published in 2012 an extensive, three-part series on “children’s fitness and education,” beginning with a discussion of “the war on child obesity” as the cornerstone of the series (Hammer and Baluja). Serving as an example of how pervasive the conflation between health and body size is in general public discourse, the article functions to normalize and concretize this conflation as though it is based on empirical evidence. While claims such as “Canadian children are suffering an epidemic of inactivity that contributes to rising obesity rates and weaker academic performance” (Hammer and Baluja) generally are unsubstantiated and contradicted by academic research (Lupton 43), the ideology that grounds them is sustained by the fear associated with the threat of the fat or “obese” child. A number of children’s picture books focusing on “healthy” food choices recently published in Canada can be read usefully within the context of this public [End Page 179] anxiety. These books, among them The Good Garden: How One Family Went from Hunger to Having Enough by Katie Smith Milway, Potatoes on Rooftops: Farming in the City by Hadley Dyer, Down to Earth: How Kids Help Feed the World by Nikki Tate, and Why Are You Doing That? by Elisa Amado and Manuel Monroy, aim to educate children on what is “healthy” to consume, with the ultimate goal of affecting children’s eating habits. My detailed analysis, from a fat studies perspective, of two such books—Up We Grow! A Year in the Life of a Small, Local Farm and Watch Me Grow! A Down-to-Earth Look at Growing Food in the City, both by Deborah Hodge—raises questions as to who is responsible for addressing, defining, or substantiating the notion of “childhood obesity” (Lupton 41) and how they implicate both the children who are to read these books and the adults who purchase them. These texts, published a year apart from each other, can be compared easily in terms of how they communicate the value of food in the context of health while featuring very different contexts, that of eating in the city and in rural communities. While the two books reviewed here do not discuss issues of fatness directly or purport to function as weight-controlling programs for children, they nevertheless are teaching tools for children to learn about food and food production, and both distinguish between food items that are to be valued and considered “healthy” and those that are not. This ascription of value judgments to particular food consumption and production practices works to dictate to children the appropriate way to grow—that is, to grow up and not out. Organized around each season, Hodge’s Up We Grow! provides readers with lots of information regarding the cycle of food production and consumption at a small, community-based farm in Abbotsford, British Columbia. The book, which features full-page, high-quality photographs of the farm and its inhabitants, attempts to bridge an assumed gap in knowledge of readers regarding how food is made and why is it important to foster an “appreciation of the importance of small, local farms...
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,011 | 0,006 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,016 | 0,062 |
| Communication savante | 0,010 | 0,011 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,007 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,005 | 0,007 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,004 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».