I struggled with self-esteem for many years due to my weight. I was bigger than everyone. I didn’t look like everyone else . . . Even when I first started [modeling], it was difficult—all that rejection. I had to learn to not take it personally. When I started to book jobs, it was a huge boost. I began to get comfortable with my size. Now, I am fine the way I am. I don’t want to be a size two . . . As a [plus-size] model, I feel pressure to be a role model, but I accept that. I didn’t have someone to look up to growing up that looked like me. I want to represent a positive message and give girls someone to look up to. I accept that mission. We [as plus-size models] need to.
While these plus-size models are marginalized by an industry that treats them as novelties, they focus not only on fighting this resistance to further their careers but also on the impact their presence in fashion has on other women. Models like Chris share the burden of representing self-identified plus-size women. Many did not begin their modeling careers with this intention but often end up embracing the mantle of spokesmodel for body acceptance.
Although I am not on the front lines of the battle to redefine beauty to include more types of bodies, I applaud those who have the courage to withstand fat stigma and bare their flesh for all to see. These curvy women are working diligently to bring sexy back to the full-figured. The plus-size models may not be in control of the image, itself, but it is their bodies that are on display. They are the ones who risk exposure to public ridicule. On the runway, they are alone and vulnerable. Their confidence amidst popular opinion on fat is admirable. Their mere presence in fashion is a step toward expanding the definition of beauty beyond a size six.
NOTES
NOTES TO CHAPTER 1
1. Bordo 1993, p. 212.
2. For example, in Antebellum America, Sylvester Graham and other dietary reformers perceived excessive body weight as an indicator of moral failings. Intemperate and gluttonous behavior, which resulted in this excess of weight, illness, and even social disorder, could be remedied by abstinence from meat and starches, as prescribed by Graham. Salvation, via the stomach, was the ultimate goal of these dietary reformers of the 1830s. This concept of weight, with its moral implications, posited weight as an indicator of spiritual well-being. See Banner 1983; Gilman 2008; Schwartz 1986; Shryock 1966; Stearns 1997 for more on the history of the fat body.
3. See Czerniawski 2007, 2010 for a history of the creation of height and weight tables. Used originally as tools to facilitate the standardization of the medical selection process throughout the life insurance industry, these tables later operationalized the notion of ideal weight and became recommended guidelines for body weights. The height and weight table was transformed from a “tool of the trade” into a means of practicing social regulation. The popularization of this tool by medical, educational, and public institutions produced a new way of classifying bodies into underweight, overweight, and normal weight categories. With these guidelines established, Americans internalized a normalizing gaze and employed individualized disciplinary practices in order to conform their bodies to an established ideal. By tracing the history of the height and weight table, we see how weight guidelines serve to discipline populations by shifting public attention toward a body that needs to be measured and disciplined.
4. See Czerniawski 2007. Since the origins of these tables, physicians and actuaries have criticized their applicability to the general public. Before 1908, height and weight tables for women were not based on collected measurements but rather extrapolated from the men’s table.
5. In recent years, scientists have debated the utility of BMI, given its inability to distinguish between the weight of muscle versus that of fat, e.g., under the current scale many Olympic athletes and professional football players would be classified as obese. Some studies even suggest that BMI standards need to be adjusted to account for racial and ethnic differences in body composition. An example of this can be found in Deurenberg et al. 1998.
6. See Popenoe 2005.
7. See Gross 2005.
8. Reported in Melago 2009.
9. Reported in Diluna 2010; Horne 2010.
10. Western culture did not always equate thinness with ideal beauty. In the 1860s, for example, a more voluptuous body challenged the fragile, thin idealized body of the antebellum era. This new curvaceous figure became the model of beauty, a reflection of health and vigor. By the 1870s, voluptuous women appeared in popular art, theaters, and across the various class sectors of society. Stage actresses, such as Lillian Russell, wore costumes with corsets that emphasized their round shape. This shift toward the idealization of a more curvy body coincided with a standardization of dress sizes due to the emergence of ready-to-wear apparel, drawing more attention to body shape. An 1899 article in the Ladies Home Journal described the perfect woman as one with weight proportionate to height: a height between five feet three inches and five feet seven inches, weighting between 125 and 140 pounds, bust measurement of twenty-eight to thirty-six inches, the hips about six to ten inches larger than the bust measurement, and a waist between twenty-two and twenty-eight inches. Retail drove a cultural preoccupation with body size and proportions. See Banner 1983; Gilman 2008; Schwartz 1986; Shryock 1966; Stearns 1997 for more on the history of idealized bodies.
11. Some of the models identified as fat while others as “normal” or “average.”
12. Reported in Vesilind 2009.
13. Female fashion models are, on average, between fourteen and twenty-four years of age, at least five feet eight inches tall, and wear a size two through six, with measurements close to 34-24-34 inches. Typical runway models wear a size zero or size four, depending on each design season’s aesthetics.
14. Some of the top-ranked modeling agencies will include the occasional size eight model on their plus-size roster. Generally, the models are from size ten to size eighteen, but most of the models in the top modeling agencies are size ten to size fourteen, alluding to a status system based on size. Plus-size models, similar to models in other divisions, face height requirements, as well. Models need to be a minimum height of five feet eight inches with a usual maximum of six feet tall.
15. There has been a change in the nomenclature for plus-size clothing, a subdivision of specialty retail, from “larger sizes” to “plus size.” The labeling of clothing as plus size gained prominence in the 1990s, replacing the term “larger sizes.”
16. See Hilbert et al. 2008; Puhl and Brownell 2001; Roehling 1999; Schwartz et al. 2006.
17. See Puhl and Brownell 2003.
18. See Schwartz et al. 2006.
19. See Schwartz et al. 2003.
20. To be clear, Goffman does not focus on the body per se but on the presentation of the self that is produced through interaction. He situates individuals in a social context where the self is part of an interactive social project. See Goffman 1963a, p. 35; 1963b.
21. A stigmatized individual, as defined by Goffman, is tainted and possesses a failing or handicap that creates a discrepancy between the normative expectations or stereotypes concerning that individual (i.e., his/her virtual social identity) and the attributes and abilities the individual demonstrates to possess in actu (i.e., his/her actual social identity). See Goffman 1963b.
22. An individual then self-classifies as a “failed” member of society. These “vocabularies” are also used to self-classify the individual, wherein “if a person’s bodily appearance and management categorizes them as a ‘failed’ member of society by others, they will internalize that label and incorporate it into what becomes a ‘spoiled’ self-identity.” See Shilling 1993, p. 75.
23. For more on fat activism, see the work of Cooper 1998; Farrell 2011; Saguy and Ward 2010.
24. With bodies as mirrors of society, the bodies of plus-size models reflect the subjective tensions toward body weight and illuminate thinness as a master status. Their presence challenges the dominant valuation of the body as they present a desirable image of a plus-size woman that directly co
ntrasts with the idealized thin feminine aesthetic. It is through their struggle to establish themselves as visible and marketable that we see how values are negotiated within a cultural discourse.
25. Bourdieu 1984, p. 190. For more on Bourdieu’s theory on the role of bodily practices in class formation, see Bourdieu 2000, 2001.
26. Bourdieu 1984, p. 213.
27. Reported in Engel 2013.
28. See Pesa and Turner 1999.
29. See Piran, Levine, and Steiner-Adair 1999; Striegel-Moore and Smolak 2001.
30. Reported in Dolnick 2011.
31. For an explanation on the institutionalization of the white body as the preferred body in fashion, see Mears 2011.
32. See Burns-Ardolino 2009; Molina Guzman and Valdivia 2010.
33. Giovanelli and Ostertag 2009, p. 290.
34. Millman 1980, p. 202.
35. Blum 2003, p. 5.
36. While feminist scholarship has focused on the fat body as a site of resistance to patriarchal domination (see Bordo 1993; Braziel and LeBesco 2001; Chernin 1981; Hartley 2001; McKinley 1999; Orbach 1978; Rothblum and Solovay 2009) and others have focused on identity politics and social movements by studying the work of groups such as the National Organization to Advance Fat Acceptance (see Germov and Williams 1999; LeBesco 2001; Sobal 1999), the literature fails to acknowledge the role of plus-size models, as aesthetic laborers, in negotiating and manipulating cultural interpretations and expectations of women’s bodies. See Cooper 1998; LeBesco 2001; Levy-Navarro 2009; Solovay and Rothblum 2009; Wann 2009.
37. For studies of burlesque dancers, see Asbill 2009; McAllister 2009. For studies on theater performers, see Jester 2009; Kuppers 2001.
38. Asbill 2009, p. 300.
39. Murray 2005b, p. 161.
40. Ibid.
41. Baudrillard 2005, p. 278.
42. Wacquant 1995, p. 88.
43. To understand the modeling industry, I learned how to model, for “sociologists who want to understand meaning-making in everyday life have to observe and experience these embodied practices, as they unfold in real time and space, and materialize in real bodies. We, like the people we study, must learn the practices.” See Eliasoph 2005, p. 160.
44. To maintain confidentiality, I changed names of people, places, and agencies when requested. To understand the decision made by those in charge of a model’s career, I also interviewed eight modeling agents, four of whom were directors of plus-size divisions within their agencies, from four different agencies with offices in New York City. Some agents solicited for an interview chose not to participate in this study. Two of the agencies primarily dealt with fit and commercial print modeling, while the other two dealt exclusively with fashion print. The recruited agents participated in open-ended, semi-structured interviews conducted in their place of work that lasted approximately one hour. In an industry built on crafting images, merely interviewing the fashion tastemakers resulted in carefully constructed responses and colorful vignettes. I peeled back the many layers of these tales, in combination with my lived experience as a model, to understand the mechanisms guiding agency procedures and practices.
NOTES TO CHAPTER 2
1. The stigmatization of a fat woman based on a personal attribute and subsequent internalization and incorporation of this label is similar in process to labeling behavior as deviant in societal reaction theory. In societal reaction theory, deviance is a product of the interactive dynamic between individuals in a society. A deviant behavior is one that violates social norms. From this perspective, labeling an individual as a deviant is a process, which can ultimately lead to an internalization of a deviant label, i.e., Lemert’s concept of secondary deviance. Secondary deviance alters an individual’s self-concept and affects interactions with others such that it reinforces the deviant label and results in a continuation of the deviant behavior. For example, as a secondary deviant, a plus-size model takes on the label of “plus size” as a key aspect of her identity. Labeled as plus size, the model reinforces her deviant behaviors by fulfilling the role expectations of this new status. She needs to maintain her weight, which is the source of her stigmatization, at all costs in order to work. In turn, the modeling industry promotes and reinforces her deviant behaviors—binging and overeating—through active and passive means of social control. A plus-size model endures her stigmatization and incorporates the “plus-size” label into her own identity while working within an institution that exploits her size. For more on deviance, see Becker 1964; Lemert 1951; Pfohl 1994.
2. Reported in 2006c.
3. For more on cultural producers and the aesthetic economy, see Entwistle 2002; Godart and Mears 2009; Mears 2008, 2010; Neff et al. 2005.
4. Reported in D’Innocenzio 1998.
5. Reported in Klepacki 1999.
6. Reported in Witchel 1997.
7. Reported in McCall 2013a.
8. Reported in Miller 2013.
NOTES TO CHAPTER 3
1. In August 2006, Ramos died of heart failure during a fashion show. She had been advised to lose weight and went days without eating or simply subsisting on lettuce and diet soda. Then in November of the same year, Reston died. She weighed forty kilograms at the time of death. Reported in 2006d; Taylor 2006.
2. Reported in Chernikoff 2011; Goldwert 2011; Yuan 2010.
3. Reported in Emery 2012.
4. Bernstein and St. John 2009, pp. 263–64.
5. Reported in Rochlin 2008.
6. Reported in Quinn 2008.
7. Reported in Sims 2002.
8. Ibid.
9. Reported in Weston 2008.
10. Reported in Quinn 2006.
11. Reported in Chernikoff 2013.
12. Reported in Cardellino 2013.
NOTES TO CHAPTER 4
1. Entwistle and Wissinger 2006, p. 777.
2. Hochschild 1983, p. 7; Wissinger 2004, p. x.
3. Wissinger 2004, p. 211.
4. Ibid., pp. 108–9.
5. Reported in Amador 2006.
6. For more on gender performativity, see Butler 1988.
7. For more on the social construction of gender, see West and Zimmerman 1987.
8. Foucault 1975, p. 138.
9. Wacquant 2004, p. 127.
10. Reported in Laurel 2008.
11. The standardization of dress sizes in ready-to-wear apparel started in the 1870s, but mostly focused on men’s clothing. Due to greater variability of women’s bodies, women’s clothes continued to be custom-made until the 1920s. When clothing manufacturers did produce women’s clothes, they often created their own unique sizing system that resulted in a lack of size consistency across the garment industry and generally poor fit that required at-home alterations. Therefore, the National Bureau of Home Economics of the U.S. Department of Agriculture conducted the first large-scale study of women’s body measurements in 1937. The purpose of the study was to create a sizing system for the garment industry that reflected the measurements of women’s bodies. In 1941, the results were published as USDA Miscellaneous Publication 454, Women’s Measurements for Garment and Pattern Construction. Over the next decade, the USDA collected additional data and published updated guidelines, Commercial Standard (CS)215–58, in 1958. As the bodies of American men and women grew fatter, the standard size guidelines no longer reflected the size and shape of the population. The average woman’s body, in particular, transformed from an hourglass shape to a pear shape. Since the 1980s, manufacturers have abandoned the use of these size guidelines and have begun selling bigger clothes labeled with smaller size numbers, i.e., vanity sizing. See National Institute of Standards and Technology 2004.
12. Reported in Bell 2011.
NOTES TO CHAPTER 5
1. Crossley 2001, p. 107.
2. For more on the concept of habitus, see Bourdieu 1984.
3. Mears 2011, pp. 123–24.
4. Ibid., p. 125.
5. Agencies often write off the debts of “failed models,” i.e., those who do not e
arn enough to recoup expenses, as a business expense. For more on the economics of the agency system, sees Mears 2011, pp. 59–68.
6. See Dean 2003, 2005, 2013.
7. Crossley 2004, pp. 40–41.
8. Mears 2011, pp. 72–73, 198.
9. This is in sharp contrast to film and television performers, who are represented by the Screen Actors Guild (SAG), as well as Actors’ Equity, which represents theatrical actors and stage managers.
10. Reported in 2008.
11. Reported in Sauers 2010.
12. Reported in 2009.
13. See Eaton, Lowry, et al. 2005; Crosnoe 2007 for examples of this connection between body weight and suicide.
14. Munster 2013.
15. Reported in Conti 2007.
16. Reported in Adams 2013. For more on the union’s benefits for models, see http://www.equity.org.uk/models/.
17. Reported in Lehman 2012.
18. Ibid.
19. See http://modelalliance.org/mission.
NOTES TO CHAPTER 6
1. An exposé article published in The New Yorker later disputed this claim. See Collins 2008.
2. See Stevenson 2005.
3. Reported in 2010; Shaw 2010.
4. Reported in Monget 1999.
5. Reported in Greenberg 2006.
6. Reported in Burling 2006.
Fashioning Fat: Inside Plus-Size Modeling Page 18
