ABSTRACT
What is considered “normal,” constructionist sociologists say, is a matter of definition, a cultural product, dependent on which sectors of the society wield power. Moreover, persons who fall under the penumbra of normalcy tend to be treated positively and favorably and those who do not are denied certain rights and privileges typically extended to “normals.” In the case of physical traits and characteristics, it is the human body that, and its possessor who, experience such outcomes, positive or negative. Undesirable and negatively valued physical traits are not universally regarded as a form of deviance, even within the field of sociology. But it seems undeniable that persons who depart from a socially constructed notion of normalcy are viewed by “normals” as morally inferior. For several decades, cultural and literary studies scholars have “interrogated” society’s definition and treatment of deviant bodies (Terry and Urla, 1995; Garland Thomson, 1997), and dozens of universities in the United States have offered courses in “deviant bodies” and “disability in American culture” (www.journalofliterarydisability.com/exepmplarycourses.html). I’m arguing that this territory should be no less the domain of the sociologist. In this chapter, we’ll look at the consequences of four types of bodies that are judged wanting-abnormal, deficient, repugnant, defective, unaesthetic, unappealing: First, the physically disabled; second, the esthetically wanting or ugly; third, the radically altered; and fourth, the obese. We’ll also consider the matter of tertiary deviance-the political demands made by the physically deviant, different, and disabled to enjoy their right to equality.
