Abstract
Debating obesity can be difficult. For example, critiquing obesity discourse might be (mis)read as a criticism of individual doctors, or a failure to appreciate public health, which ostensibly seeks to avoid victim blaming with its focus on 'the obesogenic environment'. In extending the obesity debate and politicising fatness and health (practice) more generally, this article responds to such criticisms as expressed by a 'sceptic' who has otherwise sought to challenge obesity science. This, in turn, helps to 'clear some ground' for critical weight studies and alternative clinical paradigms. After engaging relevant literature and repudiating the misrecognition of some of my own research, the article concludes with some reflections on how the debate might proceed amidst the flak and 'friendly fire'.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 81-105 |
| Number of pages | 25 |
| Journal | Social Theory and Health |
| Volume | 11 |
| Issue number | 1 |
| DOIs | |
| Publication status | Published - Feb 2013 |
UN SDGs
This output contributes to the following UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)
-
SDG 3 Good Health and Well-being
-
SDG 10 Reduced Inequalities
Keywords
- critical weight studies
- critique
- health
- inequality
- obesity discourse
- symbolic violence
Fingerprint
Dive into the research topics of 'Extending the obesity debate, repudiating misrecognition: Politicising fatness and health (practice)'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.Cite this
- APA
- Author
- BIBTEX
- Harvard
- Standard
- RIS
- Vancouver