Queer-constructionist Political Economy?

Seriously, though, I don’t get the promotional friendship between Melinda Cooper and the US East Coast-networked leftists, their combined attempt to mischaracterize and discredit Nancy Fraser, as if she were an opponent of queer constructionism.

Where Fraser, as a philosopher, did a philosophical analysis of how neoliberalism co-opted the antimarxist liberal and postmodern feminism that developed upon a conservative philosophical tradition, Cooper just appropriates some of the empirical 1990s family sociology and political soc studies on the American right, tosses in a couple superficial gestures to Marx, and tacks it onto a hatchet job on Fraser. Australia has the worst academic production incentives. Maybe it would seem fresh and necessary if you were a Political Scientist and thought queer social constructionism was birthed in the 2016 H. Clinton multijurisdictional campaign. Cooper’s latest is the most manipulative, orchestrated, bad-faith academic work I have seen coming out of the social sciences in recent years. Because the empirical history retelling is so derivative, it seems like it was done just to sell the denunciation, maintain the bipartisan, conservative elite + patronage exception political coalition.

Every time I see a reviewer scratch “Masterful” or “Magesterial” next to Cooper’s cheap appropriation smacked onto a wildly-bad faith denunciation, I grow curiouser and curiouser. Is this about Political Science just co-opting Political Sociology work, and Political Scientists rallying behind that? After all these years, I finally worked out how much the tenured Arts academy (not just commercial science faculty) is a collection of people seeking patronage from (or contributing to the campaigns and interests of) political parties, foreign states and defense industry, banks, etc. Is this a security economy institutions thing–some attempt to hush down the political, antimarxist role of academic poststructuralism in the academy? Why is Cooper so well networked into the Anglo-American Atlantic–to the point where a quick ‘n’ dirty, basic, redundant lit review is hailed as “magesterial”? Usually, Australians are networked into the Commonwealth. Curiouser & curiouser.

Maybe Cooper gets carte blanche for some reason after “Life as Surplus”? Maybe she just earned publishing house-backed credit as someone who can crank out books. Again, quality is at issue.

For obdurate reasons of ontological difference, Queer social constructionism is literally not a logical fit with political economy. Micro constructionism (discursive essentialism) and macro-constructionism (political economy) can make space for each other, but they cannot fuse. All Cooper did to bridge the ontological incompatibility was temporarily fake a shared epistemology–by appropriating it; this is clearly not sustainable, because it required not producing knowledge but stealing the work of and then denouncing all the people who did the epistemological work, the social science social reproduction feminists, whom Cooper dismissed by reducing and subsuming them under their philosophical-interpretive ally,  Fraser. This is not scholarship; it’s gaming. While I understand that ambition’s at play here, it’s really not going to work to demand that older feminists in particular submit like good cis-het girls to queer-careerists humping their leg, because to be a mature female feminist is also to work with being existentially queered, and it always has been. It’s not a choice. It’s not a strategy. It’s not a brand.

For leftists, it is not worth selling out all the socialist feminists who do the social reproduction empirical and theoretical work, have done it since Kollontai (1915), just to try to fake like there’s a viable, hybrid queer-constructionist political economy tradition or agenda. Don’t force it. If you need a queer path to political economy, some slightly-less-mercenary queer careerist can plagiarize Stephanie Coontz and Sarah Diamond (not queer enough 4 U ?) without profoundly disrespecting all the sex-heterogeneous socialist feminists and their work.

By contrast…The great things about Fraser are that as a philosopher she pays attention to the empirical, craft work of feminist social scientists without appropriating it–she does her own work; and b) her work is rigorous, reflective, coalitional and politic, informed by experience, and a reorienting, politically-necessary intellectual intervention that leads ideas. It’s not just a weathered French academicism–pre-scripted, delegated, conservative imperial market-state reproduction strategy, a la Cooper.

Advertisements

Post-secondary public education mining services

The Chronicle for Higher Education would not let me post this response to a 2018 article advertising edu-software:

“Won’t Someone Please Think of the Children” (WoSPThoC) is the most effective frame in which to market digital education and labor surveillance technology, and I can recognize a resonant, gendered application of moral discourse on behalf of American managerial talent’s competitive position in that dynamic international software market.

I am disappointed, however, when there’s a wasted marketing opportunity to overlap WoSPThoC with Anti-Racism TM and Positive Psychology. Anti-Racism TM has been deployed effectively in previous and concurrent Anglo-American welfare budget privatizations, K-12 privatizations, and in the development of militarized Open Borders-carceral labour markets, while newer Positive Psychology enjoins everyone to be their very best selves, extend their credit, and cooperate fully with private property and its paternal guardians.

We should not miss opportunities for discursive reinforcement in a booming market such as post-secondary education budget mining. I would like to suggest my innovative advisory, consultant, and Influencer expertise to any post-sec market development team that may be monitoring this promotional spot.

Feminism & Neoliberalism: Dovetail Development

Nancy Fraser on the co-development of the latter-20th century feminist movement and neoliberalism as a form of capitalism.

Neoliberalism wants cheap women workers.

Pillars of 2nd wave feminism (against state-organized capitalism) that melded with neoliberalism, post-1970s, to create the degraded form of feminism characteristic of the conservative age:

1) Critique of economism/focus on distributive justice –> cultural determinism, glorifying political-economic ignorance.
2) Critique of androcentrism, male family wage–> uncritical embrace of wage labour.
3) Critique of managerialism/technocracy/nation-state as arena of political contestation

–>market over state, deregulation, welfare state retrenchment.

It’s not just that feminism has been hijacked by capital.

There is an affinity between feminism & neoliberalism that enables their coalition: They both oppose traditional authority. Ideally, feminists oppose the traditional authority of elders, fathers, husbands; capitalists oppose traditional authority that slows or broadly redistributes profit accumulation. But capital has the resources and some feminists have the motivation to efface those specificities, or to cohere when the specifics overlap; and it’s capital’s terrain.

Current trends in feminist neoliberalism:

1) Today, feminism is less a critique of capitalism, and more of a contribution to neoliberalism, eg. microcredit finance as “answer” to poverty.

2) Gender and sexuality departments in universities are used to pioneer academic proletarianization, privatization and other neoliberal policies.

3) With the explosion of surveillance states, especially the US, feminist anti-male violence politics and policies are used as a tool to enforce US-centric state monopoly on violence and conservative policy orthodoxy within the capitalist World-system.

4) Feminist obeausity entrepreneurs oppose pro-working class food, health, and transit movements.

5) Neoliberal feminists continue to insist that we have to valorize popular political-economic illiteracy, which, they hold, is within a properly female domain, whereas they hold that political-economic literacy is “male.” This conceptualization translates in practice into the Victorian Progressivist/feminist assumption that a competent, educated woman’s work is properly low-paid/unpaid caregiving and hegemony transmission, wherefrom eventually elect women are promoted into caregiving and cultural management.

6) “Polyvocality” busywork keeps the young women fussing, fretting and preening about in the house, forever perfecting cocktail party guest lists and chiding each other about their manners, even as the house is being systematically dismantled by bulldozers, and plundered by Christian patriarchs, bankers, and oil men. It’s a prefigurative technique; it’s not political engagement. It’s a partial gesture, thats game-changing effectiveness requires social preconditions.

I agree strongly with Nancy Fraser’s dead-on observation that feminists (maybe because we come from different political and material vantage points) have not in this conservative era figured out how to oppose traditional authority in a way that makes feminism distinct from neoliberalism (that is, US-centric global monopoly capitalism).

While feminists who acknowledge this prefer to claim that feminism is just weaker than conservatism, and there is truth to that, it is also true that mainstream, liberal feminist politics and policies cohere feminists to neoliberal initiatives as well.

Eisenstein, Hester. 2009. Feminism Seduced: How Global Elites Use Women’s Labor and Ideas to Exploit the World. Boulder: Paradigm.

Eisenstein essentially takes up Viriginia Woolf’s enlightened charge in “Three Guineas” (1938).

and cites Johanna Brenner: “(M)ainstream feminist goals are entirely compatible with the economic doctrines of corporate globalization” (ix).

Judith Orr (2010) reviews the feminist terrain from England.

But for one anti-neoliberal feminist example, Naomi Wolf is always in there, drawing the line in the sand between capitalist class political projects and feminist commitments. You may prefer the (co-optable, acontextual) brand of female “purity” offered by liberal or radical feminism, but I really appreciate the dirty public role Wolf takes on in these controversies.

Prominent, reliable anti-neoliberal feminists include:

Nancy Fraser
Ellen Meiksins-Wood
Selma James
Judith Orr
Johanna Brenner
Hester Eisenstein
Naomi Wolf
Angela Davis
Barbara Ehrenreich
Julie Matthaei
Amy Goodman
Marilyn Waring
Jacqui M. Alexander
Chandra Talpade Mohanty
Pnina Werbner
Frances Fox Piven
Arlie Hochschild
Juliet Schor
Holly Sklar
Diane Elson
Mariane Ferber
Julie Nelson
Mimi Abromowitz
Roxanne Dunbar-Ortiz
Kim Phillips-Fein
Stephanie Coontz
Lani Guinier
Brooksley Born (?)
Naomi Klein
Sasha Lilley
Kate Drabinski
Emily Drabinski
Karen Orren (?)

Historical left-feminists:

Alexandra Kollontai
Alice Field
Jenny Marx Longuet
Eleanor Marx
Annie Besant
Silvia Pankhurst
Virginia Woolf
Raya Dunayevskaya
Dora Monefiore
Clara Zetkin
Dolores Ibarruri
Lena Morrow Lewis
Harriet Taylor
Evelyn Reed
Kate Millett
Bernice Shoul
Teresa Ebert
Marlene Dixon

TBC…

What will feminists replace traditional patriarchal authority with, besides the orthodox, male-dominated US-centric market daddy wagon we’ve way too often been hitched to and steered by since the 1970s?

Neoliberal feminism is not so much an abeyance institution as it is a technique for advancing conservative initiatives that feast on the blood, sweat and tears of women– while letting feminists feel those familiar feminine feelings: righteous and altruistic and busy…and exhausted and frustrated. This is a central problem to feminism that should no longer be pussy-footed around in the interest of maintaining a vagina- and queer sexual identity-centered coalition.

 

It does not increase women’s freedoms to answer “We shall replace the capitalist capitan of our hearts with polyvocality,” the idealist, romantic, pluralist “substitute” for sometimes-coalitional, sometimes-contentious political democracy, and a diluted, denatured and anxiously-respectable form of resistance. Which is not to say polyvocality isn’t difficult. Indeed, under present might-makes-right social relations, polyvocality can never be substantively accomplished to challenge the order. That difficulty doesn’t mean it is the prime lever to order change.

We don’t exit hierarchical, exclusionary, patriarchal “gang” relations by urging an interdependent pluralistic voluntarism (AKA  polyvocality). There’s an alluring micro-macro homology to that theory–and it’s too easy, and the US has shown that the valorization of pluralism cannot counter social human organization and power within a hierarchy building, surplus accumulating framework.

Instead Enlightenment’s champions fight together, over centuries, to found institutions that systematically, broadly redistribute  resources, surplus, status, and power (This is the Frodo Baggins theory: Concentrated power is a burden that corrupts. Control tyranny by distributing power to those least capable of (ab)using it, and keep it moving around. I’m sorry, it’s very nerdly; but essentially, in this view, Lord of the Rings is an Enlightenment story about how you get to communism. It should be rewritten by a socialist-feminist.), and we fight to beat back organized, capital-backed coalitions of conservatives–people who specifically want to restrict power, status and surplus to a small group most able to abuse it.

This is a long haul. Sometimes it requires disruption; sometimes it requires coalition-building and alternative institution building. Because there is an outside context of motivated power that systematically rapes and pillages, you cannot (figuratively) expand the acequias outside the remote interstices (figuratively, Northern NM) unless you repeatedly fight the long fight, as well as build alternative institutions and culture. Here is where historical-materialist feminists do not buy the capitalist portrayal of communism. Yes, communists fight, and that is needed. Pacified alterity cannot induce change by itself, because surplus-accumulating power is complex enough and flexible enough to absorb it; and it is not enough to celebrate the marginalized existence of pacified alterity within a dehumanizing, environmentally-destructive system. We need to re-engage strategic, contentious politics, to disrupt, as historical political sociologists Frances-Fox Piven and Domhoff will agree.

As Lichterman says, it is strategic not to reify specific individuals and groups as opponents, so that we can recognize the moment’s coalition opportunities; but we always have to be able to recognize the conservative difference and oppose it. We understand that egalitarian liberation requires a role for creative, contentious collective strategy when we recognize, as Zizek notes, that an order, including patriarchy, mobilizes its defenders.  The twentieth century’s basic passion, “the belief that politics was the key to our truths as well as our myths,” (Hobsbawm 2012) has not been superceded, only suppressed for class warfare purposes.

 
Polyvocality is necessary, but so extremely insufficient, that by itself, it does more harm (contributes to tyranny) than good (moves us toward broad egalitarian, developmental relations). Within the context of organized conservatism, the process and goal of polyvocality, and the prefigurative politics of polyvocality tend to deliver not polyvocality but conservatism, in the form of neoliberalism (conservatism-cum-liberalism). This is because the capitalist market grotesquely amplifies the voice of the powerful, the accumulators. In a putatively-polyvocal (pluralist) regime, the automatically-amplified voice will drown out all others. Like voting, polyvocality is an utter and complete mirage under capitalism. It prettily promises that immediately we can model and deliver equal and sufficient liberation for all, and with herculean effort it may provide a freedom here or there, at a scale sufficient to keep the ladies busy with manners and guest list projects while egalitarian freedoms are crushed en masse. Not unlike white women’s traditional role in the US South. So far, polyvocality’s chief accomplishment is to support capitalist class cohesion, and insofar as feminists subscribe to it, to subsume non-elite women under the project of multicultural capitalist class cohesion. Polyvocality alone cannot reduce women-exploiting, women-crippling business as usual.
 
You cannot move toward either political or cultural democracy if you are studiously neglecting and forever deferring to disrupt the egregious, overbuilt, institutionalized, hierarchically-structured relationships of tyranny and domination–our relationships within the oikos, our relationships to the surpluses extracted and amassed, and to those who control them–that structure our everyday lives. That neglect is the result of making the wrong (respectable, proper) coalitions.
 

Polyvocality has to be a preservation practice of monastery communities, and a second-tier goal, after feminists have stopped forming “coalitions” with (being co-opted by) capital’s primitive accumulation and exploitation initiatives, and have instead embraced the long hard road of forming capitalist order-disruptive, organization-building coalitions with the working class, which is not male (even if conservatives have had some of it wishing it were). It’s obvious that US working class institutions are heavily to blame for this coalition failure–but they’re nearly obliterated now. 


The point I am making in this post:
Feminists need a socialist backbone not because socialism is a more transhistorically-essential political program; not at all. Feminists need a socialist backbone because without a critique of capital, in a capitalist context, feminism will be emphatically subsumed by and subordinated to conservative surplus and power accumulation projects that eviscerate feminist achievements and obstruct feminist goals.


The conservatives are showing us that in the US, time and time again, they can invoke and wield Little King politics that promise, no matter what else might be going on, that every dispossessed American can join together with the political-economic elite in ruling with an iron fist over women as a group. That political strategy cannot be beat back and held down unless feminists can join together with socialists to advance, both with some prefigurative politics and with plenty of non-innocent, political conflict, both the egalitarian distribution of the wealth society collectively creates and post-feudal freedoms for all.

Women who have emerged from abuse know–You cannot overcome systematic abuse with a culture of “egalitarian” respect and listening, practiced by only one side, the abused. Now consider this difference in this analogy: We cannot exit our abusive relationship (based in surplus and power accumulation)–We cannot exit our planet, and find a more supportive “women’s shelter” planet. Ours is the long, hard battle not just to maintain a distinct, better vision of human relations, but to engage in conflict, to subdue, and to conquer the oppressor–as the political-economic opportunity strikes (as he loses coherence, confidence, hegemonic monopoly), and put him on a new track, within which he is motivated and compelled to share in the reproductive provisioning and to share resources, status, and power.

At that point the idealists–the anarchists and postmodernists have an important role to play in fostering reinforcing polyvocal culture and art. The monks and nuns of prefigurative politics will take care of themselves today. We need to be fostering, valorizing, and protecting organizers, strategists, communist horizon theorists (including socialist-feminists), monkeywrenchers, and fighters.

Obesity is a Social Inequality & Health Problem

Sociology: I like it more the further removed it is from the task, explicit or de facto, of  proposing the manners required to grease or otherwise optimize capital accumulation.

I appreciate that feminists feel under siege and martyred. Don’t we all these days. But sometimes, due to  un-nuanced, anti-authoritarian alliances with capital, some kinds of feminists permit feminism to be reduced to a wretched, reactionary tool. Certainly, liberal feminism is commonly used in the contemporary era as a tool by political elites to persecute political opponents, as for example where Swedish courts are currently abusing pseudo-feminist sex deviance charges to persecute Wikipedia’s Julian Assange (Sweden has an established weakness for allowing conservatives to use liberal feminism to attack progressive policy, as in immigration).

We appear to have arrived at an epochal juncture where, while global oil-finance-war capitalist machines and working class Enlightenment fighters clash in the streets, postmodernism appears to consist of poorly-paid, impassioned liberal (sometimes self-identifying as radical) feminists, as they are tossed out of the crumbling offices of dying Women & Gender Studies departments in dying humanities schools in overpriced colleges and universities, grasping desperately at the last, remnant, potentially-fundable liberal reform cause: Obeausity liberation (sponsored by Pepsico).

In obesity advocacy, liberal feminism and radical social constructionism are tools used to claim that obesity has no known association with disease. For example, on the environmental website Grist, obesity advocates opposed environmentalists’ pro-bicycling infrastructure campaign on the grounds that it is an affront to obese women. This the last great liberal cause exhorts us to liberate the maligned fat girls from their oppression at the hands of the elite of society: the mean girls, the bicyclists, men who aren’t attracted to fat, and the unsupportive medical doctors of course. In academia, an obese Canadian OISE academic claims that obesity-as-public-health-issue is nothing more than a mean social construction. Presumably to her the function of recognizing a relationship between obesity and disease would simply be to make her feel like she’s in the 7th grade again. Solipsism and careerism charade as a justice campaign.

In a 2010 article from this expanding academic subfield, the UCLA authors Saguy, Grys and Gong reduce the terrain of the issue to a random fight between two groups they reify as moralists v. sociologists. Essentially these are Sneetches with Stars, an unsociological group of people who, presumably out of sheer meanness, choose to understand obesity as a sin behavior “like smoking,” versus Sneetches without Stars, presumably more sociologically-sophisticated people who understand obesity as an “ascribed characteristic like race.”

You know, I enjoy a critique of rampant sociological illiteracy and individualistic moralism as much as anyone; but always take a step back and look around, when social science devolves into simple, de-contextualized barbarity policing/scolding, and social scientists are reduced to professional, secularized nuns. At this point in history, it is a discovery every day for 18 year olds, that race is ascribed. That doesn’t mean that at this point in history, the problem is that doctors got bitchy and called Americans fat.

Fat’s significance is not as a phenomenon of a collective 7th-grader imagination. That would be an EZ problem to solve–for example, with the good old ruler to the knuckles, basically the implied suggestion. No, fat’s significance is that it is created in the physical world outside of our heads, by unequal social relations, which hurt our bodies and minds in other ways as well. People are not being barbaric to oppose this, and it is cheap sophistry to conflate their opposition to these relations with incivility to fat women.  Because it is so myopic, X-treme, fetishized social constructionism can be such a reactionary and careerist tool. Cheap sophistry and toolery are endemic hazards of post-modernism, or any phenomenological dogma. Post-modernism’s proliferation of contextually-naive sophistry and its susceptibility to serving as a political tool for better-organized, hegemonic conservatives (centres of social domination) enable brute power to dictate the terms of reality, and that is why critical realism is required for science, human knowledge, to proceed. (Anarchist post-modernists  argue back that science is nothing more than a tool of the state. That is a debate I will take on more fully elsewhere, but some aspects of my case are embedded in this post.)

Liberal feminist social constructionism dully, dutifully black-boxes why various experts and institutions are identifying obesity as a public health problem, and what their different goals are (eg. social epidemiological efforts to improve public infrastructure v. drug company efforts to sell diet pills). Thus, to the extent that such work –similar to climate change deniers– simply ignores the changing incidence of obesity, its infrastructural, economic and policy roots, its costs to, variously, individuals, families, communities, insurance firm profits, and state health care budgets, and efforts to rectify the roots of obesity that avoid stigmatizing the obese, they are intellectually lazy. But worse, they are dissimulating;* there is in fact solid scientific consensus on the material relationship between fatness and disease.

The Causes of Mass Obesity and the Costs of Obesogenic Societies

This post is not refuting the psychological and physical struggles fat and obese people can experience. Here is a relatable article on how hard it is for a person, once she becomes fat or obese, to lose weight. John Cheese avoids pseudo-altruistic academic bullshit and gives it straight, why poor people in the West are obese, and why they stay that way: They can’t afford real food, and even if they run into money, their tastebuds have already learned that quasifood is exclusively what you stick in your piehole. “Man grows used to everything, the scoundrel.”
In her book Bossypants, Tina Fey declares that we should avoid being mean to people about their weight. I agree. Generally, I am all for being nice. I like it when people are nice to me, though I notice that in a world of 7 billion people, privatized, concentrated means of production and consequent rampant over-competition within the labor market, and very little equality and repair, this doesn’t happen as frequently as obesity advocates assume is normative. The reliable exception to this niceness rule is in paid, underpaid, or free, professional academic and political argumentation. So without further ado, let me tell you why fatness and obesity are themselves social and health problems determined by systemic social problems.

The increase in rates of obesity in the soaring-inequality Anglosphere is alarming. In the past 10 years, the incidence of obesity has risen 50% in the UK. The British National Health Service (NHS) observes that childhood obesity is increasing most drastically. Since 1980, the incidence of obesity (as based on BMI) has increased from 25% of the American population to over 1/3. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in the US, along with the British Department of Health, have classified American and British societies as “obesogenic,” meaning these societies promote increased food intake, nonhealthful foods, and physical inactivity. Although more conservative public health experts avoid specifying the well-demonstrated social epidemiological relationship between growing inequality and declining non-elite health, an obesogenic environment is nonetheless seen as the root cause of the increase in fatness and obesity in a population.

“The problems we are now seeing are to do with changes in society – the levels of car ownership, availability of convenience food,” Dr. Tim Crayford of the Association of Public Directors of Health advises. “We need to make it easier for people to make healthier choices, for example, that means having better cycling and walking networks.”

“Dr Susan Jebb of the Medical Research Council said that in this (obesogenic British) environment, it was surprising that anyone was able to remain thin, and so the notion of obesity simply being a product of personal over-indulgence had to be abandoned for good,” reported the BBC following a 2007 UK study of the impacts of obesity, conducted by 250 clinicians and backed by the British government.

Fatness-associated risk for the chronic diseases listed below can be (and has been) measured in health care costs associated with fatness. Depending on the methodology, 1998 US costs associated with fatness totaled between $51 billion – $79 billion, for example. In 2002, those who were overweight or obese cost the UK nearly £7bn in treatment, state benefits and indirect costs such as loss of earnings and reduced productivity. These costs spur both capitalist and government interest in decreasing fatness and obesity in some societies. As well, these costs to societies are private profits for many businesses, which produce and support pro-obesity commodities and infrastructure, including pro-obesity hegemonic work.

Fatness is a Risk Factor for Chronic Diseases

Some of the medical and health research establishment classifies obesity as a “metabolic disorder.” That classification facilitates lucrative medical interventions into the symptoms of the public health problem. There have also been successful efforts to designate obesity as a disease, in order to promote drug treatment. That is obviously profit-scrounging behavior, especially as it ignores and distracts from the roots of rising obesity in the population. You are on firmer ground regarding obesity as a “known risk factor for chronic diseases.”

UK studies have shown that 9,000 premature deaths/year in the UK are directly attributable to obesity. Obesity decreases a person’s lifespan on average by 9 years. Severe obesity reduces the lifespan by 13 years.

Fatness significantly increases the risk of the following ten (broad)
diseases (the evidence for the association is rated “convincing” by
the CDC):

Coronary heart disease
Type 2 diabetes
Cancers (endometrial, breast, and colon)
Hypertension (high blood pressure)
Dyslipidemia (for example, high total cholesterol or high levels of
triglycerides)
Stroke
Liver and Gallbladder disease
Sleep apnea and respiratory problems
Osteoarthritis (a degeneration of cartilage and its underlying bone
within a joint)
Gynecological problems (abnormal menses, infertility)

Fatness Taxes the Heart

According to the American Heart Association, fatness is associated
with a number of comorbidities, including several forms of heart
disease. Comorbidity means that no direct physical relationship has
been established between the main “disease,” (here considered fatness)
and the diseases it tends to occur with. So technically, many of the
diseases associated with fatness are not as far as we know caused directly by
the “disease” of fatness.

However, some heart diseases are caused by fatness, including
hypertrophy of the left heart ventricle. Weight is directly positively
related to blood pressure. Fatness tends to cause systemic
hypertension. People with severe obesity are likely to die suddenly of
dilated cardiomyopathies, featuring concomitant cardiac arrhythmias.

When the left ventricle hypertrophies, this causes the right ventricle
to also hypertrophy. This causes obstructive sleep apnea and the
obesity hypoventilation syndrome, which produce pulmonary
hypertension, dilatation, progressive dysfunction, and finally
failure.

The most valid way to diagnose obesity is via hip-waist ratio. Because
insurance companies (eg. Met Life) have traditionally used BMI to
successfully predict risk of disease, we know that BMI is a valid
predictor of heart disease for people who are not of the following
ethnic backgrounds: Pima Indians, Hispanics, and African-American
women.

Fatness Causes Diabetes Type II

Obesity causes impaired glucose tolerance or non–insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus, which leads to insulin resistance and accompanying hyperinsulinemia.

With insulin resistance, muscles no longer respond well to insulin, and do not pull sugar (or, more technically, glucose) out of the bloodstream efficiently. Both insulin resistance and fat-marbled muscles (storing extra fat within and between muscle cells) are metabolically unhealthy conditions that can be precursors of diabetes.

The BBC regularly reports on government-sponsored studies of the obesity epidemic in the UK. See:

BBC. 2007. “Obesity not individuals’ fault.” October 17.

Triggle, Nick. 2007. “Why the NHS struggles with obesity.” BBC, September 11.
Also fun: The CDC’s Global Cancer Atlas Online and the US cancer map site. The CDC’s site has mapped data on obesity as it relates to cancer.

Social-constructionist feminists are not the only accomplices in the reactionary coalition to block needed social infrastructure reform in sclerotic, anti-egalitarian, stress-fueling, health-depleting, crisis-plagued late-capitalist societies. Accepting the data on obesity’s relationship to disease, one rising Canadian star of neoclassical freakonomics has used her mathematical skills to argue that obesity is caused by cigarette taxation–which encourages individuals to give up smoking. Her view is that individuals smoke instead of eating; and so in order to stay thin, people must smoke.

So if you’re of the Panglossian pro-inequality persuasion, and yet somehow you don’t subscribe to the solipsi-feminists’ anti-empiricist flat denial of obesity and disease research findings, you have the option of embracing the conservative economists’ contention that there is a second E-Z policy approach (Besides sassily labeling obese people “Real Women” and scolding thin people and family practitioners.) to obesity: discourage taxation and encourage smoking!
Yes, this neoliberal junk social science is what painstakingly-educated people get paid and/or lauded to come up with and flog. They’re just like everyone else when it comes to scratching for their meat. It’s a wicked life, but what the hell. Everybody’s got to eat.

*To be perfectly accurate, they are radical social constructionists, and not critical realists. So they don’t recognize differences among epistemologies’ relationships to ontology. This is what allows them to join with conservatives to deny scientific consensus on changing conditions.

Infrastructural Contributors to Obesity

I) Pollutants Contribute to Obesity and Diabetes:


II) Social Inequality Contributes to Obesity via Stress


III) Capitalism Contributes to Obesity via Class Inequality in Consumption: The Consumption and Lifestyle Decision Paths of Workers and Consumers with Little Effective Demand Are Unhealthily Constrained