What Does It Mean to Say that Obesity Is Socially Constructed - Essay Example

What Does It Mean To Say That Obesity Is ‘Socially Constructed’? Introduction Overweight and obesity de a rapidly growing threat to the health of populations in an increasing number of countries. A constructionist approach reminds people that how a problem is defined affects how the public act in response to the problem, and how the experiences of individuals are influenced by the definition as well as response to their problem. Thus, social construction offers a counter to medicine’s deterministic logic in ways that can widen and enhance policy deliberations and decisions (Peter, 2014). Social construction of obesity has several benefits even though there are criticisms leveled against social construction. What does it mean to say that obesity is ‘socially constructed’? The Social constructionist perspective contribute to our understanding of weight problems since they focus people’s attention on how these problems are created, maintained, and operated within various social environments (Vivien, 2006) Social determinants with reference to obesity consist of factors such as education, income, socio-economic status, employment and access. All of which signify our level of deprivation. Deprivation is demonstrated to be a powerful forecaster of the prevalence of obesity, both in developed as well as transitional societies and the relationship between socio-economic status and obesity is complex and pervasive (Brown, 1991). What is striking about the obesity pandemic is the degree to which it mirrors social class conditions. For example; The Health Survey for England has revealed that in 2001, fourteen percent of women within professional groups were obese, whereas twenty-eight percent of women from unskilled manual jobs were categorized as such (House of Commons Select Committee on Health 2004). This connection between obesity and poverty is likely to be the outcome of fundamental social factors. It is not that there is an automatic relationship between obesity and poverty. This relationship is a new observable fact, which, therefore, requires to be examined in the light of current social, economic and political developments. What is social construction? Social construction refers a conceptual framework that gives emphasis to the cultural as well as historical characteristics of phenomena extensively thought to be solely natural. The emphasis is on how meanings of phenomena do not automatically inhere in the phenomena themselves however grows via interaction in a social framework. In other words, social construction studies how individuals as well as groups contribute to creating perceived social reality as well as knowledge (Berger and Luckman 1966). How a social constructionist approaches an illness is ingrained in the broadly recognized conceptual difference between disease, that is, the biological condition and illness, that is, the social meaning of the condition (Eisenberg 1977). Even though some criticisms and drawbacks of this distinction exist (Timmermans and Haas 2008), it is all the same a conceptual tool which is extremely useful. Contrary to the medical model, which presumes that diseases are universal and do not vary in respect to time or place, social constructionists stresses on how the meaning and experience of illness is produced by cultural as well as social systems. Illness is not just present in nature, waiting to be found out by physicians or scientists. Social construction originated as an attempt to come to terms with the nature of reality. It emerged some thirty years ago and has its origins in sociology and has been associated with the post-modern era in qualitative research (Peter, 2014). Why this method is useful when applied to ‘obesity’ This method of social construction has significantly helped to reduce stigmatization to obese individuals. Social constructionist perspective contribute to our understanding of weight problems because they focus our attention on how these problems are created, maintained, and operated within various social environments. Stigma is a well-known enemy in the Public Health field. Throughout history, stigma has inflicted suffering on groups susceptible to disease and messed up efforts to prevent those diseases from advancing. Disease stigma comes about when individuals are held responsible for their illnesses since they are viewed as lazy unclean, or immoral (Rebecca 2008). Weight stigma, besides emphasizing unhealthy behaviors, it poses a major threat to physical and psychological health. Evidence accumulated reveals that weight stigma provokes psychological stress as well as emerging research proposes that this stress causes poor physical health outcomes to the obese individuals (Rebecca 2008). Who has applied it? Eliot Freidson and Michel Foucault used this method of social constructionist. Eliot Freidson’s (1970) also laid significant foundation for the social construction of illness approach. In his book, in a section titled “The Social Construction of Illness,” Freidson (1970) gives explanations on how illnesses have outcomes independent from any biological effects: "When a physician diagnoses a human’s condition as illness, he alters the man’s behavior by diagnosis; a social state is added to a biophysiological state by giving the meaning of illness to disease. It is in this sense that the physicians creates illness . . . and that illness is . . . analytically and empirically distinct from mere disease’’ (Freidson, 1970). Michel Foucault (1977) also contributed extensively to a social construction of illness approach. He considered knowledge like a form of power. Particularly, Foucault claimed that expert knowledge in relation to human normality and abnormality, which is not naturally given or objective, is the main form of power in the modern culture: thus, his frequently quoted expression, “knowledge/power.” He put a lot of emphasis on how medical discourse constructs knowledge concerning the body, including disease. Medical discourse can, in turn, persuade people’s behaviors, impact their subjective experiences of embodiment, legitimate medical interventions and shape their identities, (Michel, 1977). What did it reveal? Freidson (1970) clearly acknowledged the real and physical social consequences of an illness label. However he also pushed for sociologists to address “how signs or symptoms get to be diagnosed or labeled as an illness in the first place” (p. 212). By arguing that disease and illness, similar to deviance, are social constructions, that is, they are evaluative categories based on social ideas about what is not desirable or acceptable. He foretold the succeeding sociological study of medical categories as well as knowledge (Peter, 2014). Scholars who were inspired by Foucault deconstruct medical knowledge, that is, offer a comprehensive analysis of medical discourse, to make public its rooted meanings, stabilize tendencies, and relationship to identity and embodiment (Rose, 2006)). What are the counter arguments? The major criticisms leveled against social construction can be summarized by its perceived conceptualization of relativism and realism. There are some accusations that Social construction is being anti-realist, in refuting that knowledge is a direct perception of reality (Craib, 1997). According to Bury (1986), it challenges biomedical reality as well as questions apparently stable and self-evident realities; however, Barry presents little proof to support this argument. As an example, he maintains that it sees the discovery of illnesses as themselves social events instead of having an objective reality. This social construction criticism which entails not acknowledging an objective reality is both common and widespread, that nothing subsists beyond language (Bury 1986). If it is allowed that researchers themselves create a social world instead of simply representing some independent reality, then this is where the tension between relativism and realism (Hammersley & Atkinson, 2007). There is an growing tendency within qualitative research to take on the relativist position which led Hammersley (1992) to question the effectiveness of the findings produced from those studies making use of this method, given that the large quantity of accounts generated can each claim legality. If all are legal and granted the reasonable conclusion of relativism, then there is no justification to favor one account than the other. That is, the research conclusions make up by themselves, just another account and thus cannot allege to be superior to any other account. Questions arise as to the relevancy of such research. That is, if research is not contributing in any meaningful way to knowledge, then its usefulness can be queried, mostly in relation to health care research (Murphy et al., 1998). Realism and relativism signify two polarized perspectives on a continuum between multiple realities at one end and objective reality on the other. These two positions pose problems in qualitative research. Taking on a realist position pays no heed to the way the researcher creates interpretations of the findings and believes that what is reported is a correct and realistic explanation of an inevitable and independent reality. Relativism results to the conclusion that nothing can always be definitely known, that there are many realities, none is superior to the other in terms of claims to signify the truth regarding social phenomena (Tom, 2012). Relativism upholds that since there are multiple realities, there are multiple interpretations of those realities (Tom, 2012). This leads in the opinion of Bury (1986) to a circular argument, in that there is no way of judging one account of reality as better than another. Craib (1997) particularly mocks social construction for its alleged position on the realist-relativist argument and sees it as a comforting collective belief instead of a theoretical position. He participates in what Hammersley (1992) calls a nihilist argument, namely the argument that since social construction is itself a social construct, then it has no more claim to be advanced as an explanation than any other theory. This gives rise to there being no idea of what makes up the truth (Burr 1995). Hammersley (1992) refers to this as the self-refuting nature of relativism and tries to argue against it by suggesting the adoption of subtle realism. Radical social construction is an insignificant position (Murphy et al., 1998). According to Bury (1986), research conducted by making use of social constructionist framework lacks any ability to modify things since there is nothing against which to judge the findings of research (Bury, 1986). Thus, in this sense it becomes a methodological issue. This gives rise to political inertia as a consequence of the reluctance of social constructionist research to make any recommendations (Bury, 1986). Burningham and Cooper (1999) maintain that this takes place as a result of a misreading of the process in that researchers adopting this approach do not ground their arguments in, or bring into disrepute opposing arguments by comparing them unfavorably with objective reality, that is, in presenting their findings, social constructionists do not present them in objectivist terms, but instead depend on the plausibility of their findings. In other words, they embark to have their findings accepted by presenting a convincing argument rather than arguing that their results are definitive. This is in agreement with the idea in constructionism that the findings of research are one of many discourses. Craib (1997), a psychotherapist and sociologist, proposes that social construction is simply a coping means for dealing with quick change; that it embraces change so as to evade having to justify or defend their position regarding anything. This permits them to assert that their position, is simply another social construct, no position is superior to the other. In his opinion, social construction is a form of interactionism (Craib, 1997). Conclusion Social construction provides an important counterpoint to the largely deterministic approaches of medicine to disease as well as illness. A social constructionist approach offers an invaluable conceptual wedge for policy formulation through illuminating the social contingencies of illness at the individual, institutional, as well as societal levels. It brings our attention to contingent spaces where some form of action or inaction can fundamentally change later events. Using social construction approach to the issue of obesity is one which can have several advantages. Social construction can assist people to describe why problems exist, where they grow, and how they can be managed. Understanding these different viewpoints makes for more conclusive analysis. With obesity, the social construction permits individuals to form their own opinions on the aetiology of obesity as well as how it is best approached. References Brown, P. (1991). Culture And The Evolution Of Obesity. Human Nature, 2(1), 31-57. Burningham, K. & Cooper, G. (1999). Being Constructive: Social Constructionism And The Environment. Sociology 33(2), 297-316. Bury, M. (1982). “Chronic Illness As Biographical Disruption.” Sociology of Health and Illness 4:167–82. Berger, P,. & Luckmann, T. (1966). The Social Construction of Reality: A Treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge. New York: Anchor. Craib, I. (1997). Social Constructionism As A Social Psychosis. Sociology 31(1), 1-15. Eisenberg L. (1977). “Disease And Illness: Distinctions Between Professional And Popular Ideas Of Sickness.” Culture, Medicine and Psychiatry 1:9–23. Freidson, E. (1970). Profession of Medicine: A Study of the Sociology of Applied Knowledge New York: Harper and Row. Foucault, M. (1975). The Birth of the Clinic: An Archaeology of Medical Perception. New York: Vintage Books. Hammersley, M. (1992). What’s Wrong with Ethnography? Routledge, London. Hammersley, M. & Atkinson, P. (2007). Ethnography: Principals in practice (3rd Ed.). London: Routledge. House Of Commons. (2004). Health. Retrieved From http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200304/cmselect/cmhealth/23/2302.htm Murphy, E., Dingwall, R., Greatbatch, & Parker, P. (1998). Qualitative research methods in health technology assessment: a review of the literature. Health Technology Assessment 2(16). Peter, C. (2014). The Social Construction of Illness. Retrieved From http://hsb.sagepub.com/content/51/1_suppl/S67.full?patientinform-links=yes&legid=sphsb;51/1_suppl/S67#content-block Rebecca, M. (2010). Obesity Stigma: Important Considerations for Public Health. Retrieved From http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2866597/ Rose, N. (2006). Politics of Life Itself: Biomedicine, Power and Subjectivity in the Twenty-First Century. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Timmermans, S. & Haas, S. (2008). “Towards a Sociology of Disease.” Sociology of Health and Illness 30:659–76. Tom, A. (2012). What is Social Constructionism? Retrieved from http://groundedtheoryreview.com/2012/06/01/what-is-social-constructionism/ Vivien B. (2006). An Introduction to Social Constructionism. Canada: Taylor And Francis Group. Read More