Fat Bodies Made small a data physicalization of fat literature classed in medicine
Introduction
Cataloging as Power
The very nature of cataloging belies the claim that it is an unbiased, neutral, and systematic process. Not only do individual catalogers make personal decisions about how to describe and categorize materials, but these decisions are justified by the standards that authoritative institutions created and embedded with biases of the culturally dominant group. These information organization systems thus perpetuate and amplify social inequities experienced by marginalized groups. Naming people using “authorized” language holds the power to stigmatize, and classifying something holds the power to render people invisible, as lesser, and as other.
Stigmatization of Fatness in LIS
The cultural stigmatization that fat people experience in the United States (and globally) is multifaceted but largely stems from medicine's definition of "obesity" as a cause of ill health and various cardiovascular diseases. Not only does it cause disease, but it is itself a "disease," according to medical authorities. This determination was based on deeply flawed research using the Body Mass Index (BMI), and both that research and the standard itself have since been contested. Some such authorities, like former Surgeons General C. Everett Coop and Richard Carmona, even went so far as to declare a "War on Obesity" and use post-9/11 terrorism rhetoric to stoke the flames in the "fight" against this "disease." This discourse has woven its way into the very fabric of society, even daily conversation, and most people now equate fatness with ill health and thinness with health. This is a false dichotomy; thin people can be unhealthy, and fat people can also be healthy. Weight and body size do not solely define a person's health.
Fatphobia and weight bias have not been sufficiently addressed in the field of library and information science (LIS). Only a few studies on this topic have been published, including the creation of a fat community archive (Pratt, 2018), the experiences of fat female librarians (Versluis et al., 2020), and fatphobia in physical library spaces.
Research about the marginalizing power of information systems has centered around gender identity, sexuality, race, non-dominant cultures, and disability, while fat bodies have been largely overlooked. Previous literature on information organization and critical cataloging have emphasized the subjective nature of describing materials and assigning headings to them as well as the limitations of the classification systems that seek to order them on the shelves. A preliminary project by Katelyn Angell and Charlotte Price (2012) examined the subject headings and classes assigned to Fat Studies books in their library’s collection.
The vast majority of the titles were lumped into R—a decidedly problematic move, as this specific act of classification essentially medicalizes a social and political movement, as well as cements the common stigma of inferiority associated with all things fat. (Angell & Price, 2012, p. 159)
Through this project, I hope to bring weight stigma into more focus as a worthy issue within the field of library science. This data physicalization is a result of a content analysis of print materials about fatness classed in medicine according to Library of Congress Subject Headings (LCSH) and Classification (LCC). As Angell and Price have shown, these standards lack adequate coverage for fat materials, causing virtually all fat literature to be classed in medicine, whether it is a medical text or not. This pathologizes fatness, resulting in library systems perpetuating the stigmatization of fat bodies, even legitimizing it. Classification systems also severely lack a way to appropriately handle intersectionality. For example, the inflexibility of these systems forces catalogers to choose a single aspect of a book on fat African American women to represent the entire work; classifying it according to the subject heading “Overweight women” effectively renders African American identity invisible on the shelf and disregards race as a compounding factor in the stigmatization of fatness and vice versa.
The Data
I have conducted a thematic analysis of fatness in print materials across four medical class numbers shelved in Davis Library at the University of North Carolina. Using the problem and blame frames outlined by Abigail Saguy in What's Wrong with Fat? (2013), I identified the ways each book characterizes fatness, assigned an overall attitude towards fatness, and assigned the broad LC class I felt was most appropriate for each book's disciplinary leaning. The goal was to visualize the makeup of attitudes shelved within these medical sections and to show how the lack of subject headings and classes for fatness lead to non-medical disciplines being shelved among medical texts.
As a fat woman, I found the analysis particularly difficult for me. I analyzed a variety of fat-positive, fat-neutral, and fat-negative texts; consequently, the process involved cycling between negative and positive emotions for hours at a time. My artifact also captures this experience. This work is not objective. Nor should it be divorced from its affective dimension. The artifact aims to embody the conflicting attitudes toward fatness, the marginalizing effect of the arrangement of these materials, and the emotional burden placed on me and other fat library users. It is imperative that LIS professionals address the built-in legitimization of fatphobic rhetoric and the medicalization of fatness by subject headings and classification systems, and this project seeks to spur that conversation forward.
DESIGNing the Book
The artifact is a hand-bound book, whose pages represent each book in four class numbers as they are arranged on the shelf in Davis Library.
Technical Elements
I used InDesign to create and arrange the pages for the text block, since I had previous (though limited) experience with the software. The "Print Booklet" feature allowed me to print the pages according to a 32-page imposition, and I ended up with a total of 192 pages and six signatures. Case binding served as the method I chose, using buckram in order to mimic library-style bindings.
The ratio of pages to books is not 1:1; some books only take up one page, while others cover two or more pages, depending on how much information was necessary to convey what the book is about. I also was not able to include every book from each section, as some books were likely in use or checked out at the time of scanning.
Conceptual Elements
The main concept for this artifact is to subvert the nature of the book. Most books do not contain so many conflicting attitudes and ideas about a topic. In this book, however, various negative, neutral, and positive attitudes towards fatness blend together from one page to the next, resulting in a jarring experience, perhaps not dissimilar to that of a fat patron browsing the shelves.
Library systems play a role in framing fatness by arranging books according to the flawed standards, and I have played a similar role in designing this book. Not only did I decide how the pages should represent each book, I also used the frame feature in InDesign to manipulate how the scans looked. In order to optimize the resolution of the scanned images (to the best of my ability, though it is far from perfect), I had to resize the images and determine how best to crop them with the frame. The video below illustrates this manipulation; the orange border is the border of the image itself, while the blue one is the frame.
This is to say, we are always framing, reframing, and operating within frames defined by others. When frames are used in marginalizing ways, we must push back. This art form gave me the ability to assert myself in the framing of fatness.
The artifact also challenges authoritative library systems in that I engaged in the taboo of marking up my library book. The margins and text are marred by red ink with my thoughts and reactions to authors' claims. This was my chance to interrogate and respond to them. I chose red ink (and red buckram for the cover) because not only is it typically the color associated with health iconography, it also speaks to me of harm and resistance.
Lastly, this bound book serves as a metaphor for the embeddedness of information organization systems. These bound pages cannot easily be separated, just as LCSH and LCC are not easily modified.
Binding the Book
Sewing the Text Block
I used a slight variation on the kettle stitch. As I had never sewn a text block before, I spent some time watching videos and sewing a test copy first. My stitching is likely tighter than it should be; however, I think it is rather thematic in a book about making fat bodies small. Tighter stitching is reminiscent of the tightly laced corset.
With sewing completed, I marked up the pages in red ink, since it would be easier for me to do at this stage before the cover was attached. Next, I placed the text block in the book press I made with my dad. This was to keep the signatures aligned while gluing the spine with PVA. Admittedly, it was difficult for me to make sure all of them were properly aligned, likely due to the tight stitching. No matter how much I tried to manipulate and push the signatures into alignment, they would slightly shift out once more as I tightened the press. I could not help but reflect on all the times I tried to lose weight (and "succeeded") only to gain it all back; the signatures seemed to serve as a metaphor for this struggle experienced by so many fat people.
After it dried, I added endpapers with about a 1/4 inch of glue down the spine edge of the front and back of the block (not shown in the images below), once again drying them in the book press. Lastly, to complete the text block, I measured and cut a 5x8 inch piece of paper and glued it around the spine to reinforce the endpapers. I decided to leave the page edges uncut.
Constructing the Cover
I have previously created and affixed covers for case bindings when I worked in general collections conservation, but I am very much out of practice as it has been years since I worked in that capacity. I measured my boards based on the size of my text block, then cut and affixed them to the red buckram cloth with PVA. Cutting the boards proved difficult because I did not have access to a bookbinding guillotine; instead, I used a straight edge with a finger guard and a utility knife. As a result, the boards did not necessarily come out perfectly even. (Because it was more laborious, I have not included images or video of the measuring and cutting.) With the cover constructed, I then attached the text block by applying PVA to the boards and endpapers, smoothing out the endpapers to the best of my ability with a bone folder, and left it in the book press to dry.
The resulting book is far from perfect. The perfectionist in me struggled to accept its flaws, such as the uneven margins, slight misalignment of the signatures, and the poor resolution of the text on some pages. But that perfectionist also sought to "perfect" her body by rejecting physical "flaws" such as body size, stretch marks, and cellulite. I have since learned that the "perfect" body is an unattainable ideal, and my body serves me and nourishes me so that I can create things like this book despite not being "perfect." So just as there is no such thing as the perfect body, there is also no such thing as the perfect artifact. I accept my artifact for what it is, imperfections included.
Epilogue
I hope to bring awareness to the stigmatization and marginalization of fat bodies by information organization standards and to show the need for new subject headings and classes for fat materials.
This project speaks to fat library patrons who may be searching for weight-neutral medical materials or body-positive Fat Studies materials (which are erroneously shelved in Medicine due to LCC’s limitations). Nevertheless, stakeholders for this project include more than just fat people; fat acceptance and body positivity as social movements can benefit people of all body sizes, shapes, and weights. Fatphobia creates a binary standard by which every individual judges themselves and others: “fat is bad” and “thin is good.” The fatphobic rhetoric that pushes people to pursue an unattainable body ideal can just as much affect a thinner person who may have a distorted view of themselves due to the hegemonic discourses around the idea of the "healthy" body. Challenging the authoritative way LCC and LCSH treat fatness would hopefully benefit all people affected by body marginalization, not just fat people.
At this time, classification systems are so thoroughly embedded in library institutions; indeed, their standardized nature allows for consistent organization practices that enable patrons to more reliably find things no matter which library they visit. However, this standardization severely limits possible courses of action to make changes to these systems. The Library of Congress allows information professionals to submit subject heading and classification proposals; however, LC has published very little information about the process of submitting and examining classification proposals, in comparison to the information it provides about subject heading proposals. Furthermore, even if a proposed change or addition is approved, the work necessary to implement the changes heavily burdens individual libraries, many of which may not have the resources to take on reclassification projects. When they do have the resources, it becomes difficult to balance collection growth and maintenance of older materials. So how do we even begin to address something as embedded and difficult to dismantle as a classification system?
While subverting the nature of the book through binding together the conflicting attitudes and beliefs, this artifact will also use the nature of the bound book to illustrate the difficulty of dismantling such an embedded system. We cannot necessarily decide to put books somewhere else as we are bound by institutional practices and standards, nor do we have the resources necessary to effect changes to the system efficiently.
This is not to say that there is nothing we can do. We can and should still submit proposals to LC to change and add subject headings and class numbers, and we can also make local changes as simple as creating physical separation on the shelves. But ultimately, it is library professionals' responsibility to further social justice for all patrons, including fat patrons, by combating the limitations of information organization standards.
Sources
Adler, M. (2017). Cruising the Library: Perversities in the Organization of Knowledge. Fordham University Press.
Angell, K., & Price, C. (2012). Fat Bodies in Thin Books: Information Bias and Body Image in Academic Libraries. Fat Studies, 1(2), 153–165. https://doi.org/10.1080/21604851.2012.641895
Bowker, G. C., & Star, S. L. (1999). Sorting Things Out: Classification and Its Consequences. MIT Press.
Chabot, R. (2021). Is the Library for “Every Body”? Examining Fatphobia in Library Spaces through Online Library Furniture Catalogues. The Canadian Journal of Information and Library Science, 44(2/3). https://doi.org/10.5206/cjilsrcsib.v44i2/3.13632
Haider, S. (2017). Library of Congress Classification (LCC): past, present and its future in the digital era (R. K. Sharma, Trans.). Annals of Library and Information Studies (ALIS).
Library of Congress. (n.d.). Cataloging and Acquisitions: Classification and Shelflisting. The Library of Congress. Retrieved March 8, 2023, from https://www.loc.gov/aba/cataloging/classification/
Lott, K. M. (2023). Fat Bodies Made Small: A Content Analysis of Fat Literature Classed in Medicine [Master thesis]. University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
Olson, H. A. (2002). The Power to Name. Springer Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-3435-6
Pratt, L. (2018). The (Fat) Body and the Archive: Toward the Creation of a Fat Community Archive. Fat Studies, 7(2), 227–239. https://doi.org/10.1080/21604851.2017.1374128
Saguy, A. (2013). What’s Wrong with Fat? The War on Obesity and its Collateral Damage. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199857081.001.0001
Steele, T. D., & Foote, J. B. (2011). Reclassification in Academic Research Libraries: Is It Still Relevant in an E-Book World? Cataloging & Classification Quarterly, 49(1), 14–32. https://doi.org/10.1080/01639374.2011.532406
Versluis, A., Agostino, C., & Cassidy, M. (2020). Fat, Fit, and Fem: Exploring Performative Femininity for Fat Female Librarians. https://doi.org/10.31229/osf.io/z35fn
Wallace, R. M. (2004). Intersectionality: A Tool for Gender and Economic Justice. Women’s Rights and Economic Change, 9. https://library.law.utoronto.ca/whrrdocument/intersectionality-tool-gender-and-economic-justice
Credits:
Created with images and videos by Kaye Lott.