Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper I examine and analyze the moral language surrounding food and eating in contemporary diet culture. I look to three dieting subcultures - 'thinspiration' (or 'thinspo', the idolization of extreme thinness), 'fitspiration' ('fitspo', the idolization of 'fit, toned' bodies) and contemporary 'wellness' culture. I argue that the vocabularies of these three subcultures are on a continuum, in that their moralizing messages reflect and embody the same gendered and racialized social prohibitions, taboos, and normativity around food, eating, and bodies. All three dieting subcultures reflect and reproduce cultural fatphobia - the social and material discrimination against fat people, and the gendered and racialized ideology in which fat bodies are seen as threatening and cast as socially abject. I argue that thinspo, fitspo, and wellness subcultures emerge as spaces which recognize fat abjectness and provide their members with different strategies for managing or mitigating the social 'danger' of food and the risk of becoming fat and socially abject. I also argue that the different moral vocabularies these subcultures use to discuss food and eating reflect these different strategies. Arguing that these three vocabularies are on a continuum with regards to the bodily and behavioral normativity they transmit is significant because while thinspo is popularly regarded as extreme and damaging, and while there is some popular critique of fitspo, mainstream ‘wellness’ culture receives much less popular critical scrutiny and is presently socially normalized. Seeing these rhetorics on a continuum enables us to see how the same social prohibitions and taboos against fatness (particularly against women's fatness) are just as operative in mainstream society as they are in ‘fringe’ spaces recognized as harmful.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".