Fashioning Fat: Inside Plus-Size Modeling (25 page)

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 contrasts 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.

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.

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.

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.

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 earn 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
.

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.

7
. Reported in 2006a; Greenberg 2006.

8
. Reported in Burling 2006.

9
. Reported in Monget 2006.

10
. See 2004b.

11
. Reported in Kovanis 2006. See Lane Bryant’s corporate website at
http://www.ascenaretail.com/lanebryant.jsp
.

12
. See Cohen 2013.

13
. Reported in Gogoi 2006; Kovanis 2006; Mikus 2006; Yao 2006.

14
. Reported in Li 2012.

15
. Ibid.

16
. Ibid.; Yao 2006.

17
. Reported in Chandler 2006.

18
. Reported in Li 2012.

19
. Reported in Mikus 2006.

20
. Reported in Li 2012.

21
. Reported in Amador 2006.

22
. Reported in Seckler 2003.

23
. Reported in 2004a.

24
. Reported in Seckler 2003.

25
. Reported in Sarkisian-Miller 2006.

26
. Reported in Denizet-Lewis 2006.

27
. Reported in Guo 2013.

28
. Reported in Daswani 2004.

29
. Reported in Li 2012.

30
. Reported in Yadegaran McClatchy 2006.

31
. Reported in Bloomfield 1989a, 1989b.

32
. Reported in Bloomfield 1989a.

33
. Reported in D’Innocenzio 1992.

34
. Reported in Krupnick 2013.

35
. Reported in Simon 1995.

36
. Reported in D’Innocenzio 1997.

37
. Reported in D’Innocenzio 1994.

38
. Reported in Fung 2000.

39
. Ibid.

40
. Reported in Lee 1998.

41
. Ibid.

42
. Reported in Wilson 1997.

43
. Reported in Simon 1995.

44
. Reported in Amador 2007.

45
. Reported in Jones 2007.

46
. Reported in Sarkisian-Miller 2006.

47
. Reported in Li 2012.

48
. Reported in Simon 1995.

49
. Reported in Greenberg 2005.

50
. Reported in Li 2012.

51
. Reported in McCall 2013b.

52
. Reported in Black 2013.

53
. See
http://www.luscious-plus-lingerie.com/aboutus.sc
.

54
. Gruys 2012, p. 487.

55
. Ibid., p. 494.

56
. See Contrino 2007a, 2007b; Diadul 2007.

57
. See
http://www.hipsandcurves.com/about-us
.

58
. See Hips and Curves 2006, 2009.

59
. See
http://www.curvycouture.com
.

60
. See
http://www.luscious-plus-lingerie.com/aboutus.sc
.

61
. Murray 2005b, p. 161.

1
. Blum 2003, p. 101.

2
. See Bakhtin 2005.

3
. Baudrillard 2005, pp. 278–79.

4
. Ibid., p. 278.