Study Notes on E. Cassandra Dame-Griff's Article
This article examines the interplay of population control rhetoric and narratives of Latina/o/x "obesity" as shorthand for ill-health and disease in calls to action to protect the U.S. body politic’s future. Government entities and public health philanthropic organizations present narratives of excessive Latina/o/x population growth, asserting that addressing Latina/o/x "obesity" is essential for protecting U.S. productivity and healthcare costs. This concern ostensibly revolves around potential health impacts of "obesity" in Latina/o/x communities but is also indicative of a nationalist project that reinforces Latinas/os/xs not as citizens, but as laborers and producers whose "health" is necessary to sustain a future citizenry racialized as white.
Through Critical Discourse Analysis, I analyze the invocation of population growth and control rhetoric regarding the potential impact of Latina/o/x "obesity" on the future nation-state. Ultimately, I suggest that fear of demographic change fuels a brand of racialized fat hatred under the guise of public health and concern for the nation’s future.
KEYWORDS: Medicalization; Latinas/os/xs; immigration; public health; futurity; population control
Introduction: public discourse, public policy
On July 23, 2015, Ann Coulter, while on “The Kelly File” on Fox News, argued that the motto for U.S. immigration policy should be: "There are way too many, and there shouldn’t be any." This statement links the idea of "too many" immigrants to a refusal to enact immigration reforms that would enable immigrant participation in the political process and citizenship. In particular, Coulter conflates immigration with Latinas/os/xs, reinforcing the racialization of the categories of immigrant, foreigner, and “illegal” as Latina/o/x and non-white.
This invocation of population control rhetoric reflects a fear and hatred of racial and ethnic others, reinvigorated in contemporary political discourse as demographic changes invoke threats of being outnumbered. Historical examples, such as sterilization campaigns targeting Mexican American women in California and birth control experimentation in Puerto Rico, demonstrate the U.S. investment in controlling a supposedly “foreign” population, rooted in xenophobia and a desire to maintain racial purity.
The focus on controlling and disciplining the Latina/o/x population ties into the racialized aspects of the “War on Obesity,” wherein Latina/o/x bodies and communities are perceived as problematic populations whose presumed proclivity toward fatness calls for surveillance and intervention. For instance, Coulter’s remarks on the Jorge Ramos Show underline the link between anti-immigration and anti-fat discourse as means to control the Latina/o/x population, highlighting how mainstream narratives often vilify these bodies.
While Coulter’s rhetoric exemplifies virulent intersections among anti-fat, anti-Latina/o/x, and population control discourses, the discussion also permeates seemingly benevolent and philanthropic institutions that aim to alleviate health disparities in Latina/o/x communities. Public health organizations, such as the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (RWJF), aim to address pressing health challenges by funding research and initiatives that treat “obesity” as a core public health issue, yet often overlook the systemic factors contributing to these disparities.
This article focuses on the medicalization of Latina/o/x fatness and how this characterization is used as a justification for intervention into the lives of these communities. Employing Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) principles, I will examine the structures of these discourses and reveal how they are rooted in anti-fat and racialized ideologies, reflecting broader societal fears of racial and cultural dilution.
"Problematic" Bodies: Discursive Constructions of Latinas/os/xs, Health, and Labor
Latinas/os/xs, like other communities of color, are often portrayed as inherently problematic populations, their bodies representing potential danger to the nation-state. This discourse reduces individuals from people to problems as exemplified in public health narratives.
Latina/o/x bodies are categorized into three interrelated classifications:
Diseased Body
Often depicted as sickly due to obesity, shaping perceptions of worth and productivity.
Undeserving, Costly Body
Framed as burdens on healthcare systems, reinforcing notions that they consume resources without contributing adequately to society.
Laboring Body
Seen primarily through the lens of economic utility, their health being a reflection of their potential productivity rather than their human dignity.
These categories are interwoven, where depictions of diseased bodies prompt calls for exclusion due to their perceived inability to contribute labor or services to the nation-state, often leading to dehumanization. Notably, Leo Chavez’s analysis of Jesica Santillan's death highlights how public discourse often casts immigrants as undeserving individuals draining medical resources rather than recognizing them as vulnerable human beings worthy of care.
Public discourse accuses immigrants of burdening medical systems, reinforcing the notion that Latinas/os/xs are less valued than citizens. The narrative shapes their identities around “sick” Latinas/os/xs who are viewed as a drain rather than a benefit to the economy, fostering harmful stereotypes that further marginalize these communities.
The Language of Medicalization: "Disease" Classifications, Neoliberalism, and Blame
In June 2013, the American Medical Association officially recognized “obesity” as a disease, aligning with neoliberal ideologies that emphasize personal responsibility for health outcomes. This recognition aimed to mobilize medical interventions akin to those for major diseases but inadvertently reinforced societal stigma against fatness.
Critics argue that labeling “obesity” as a disease conflates body size with ill health without clear symptoms tied to this classification. This framing perpetuates the stigma surrounding fatness by suggesting that fat bodies are inherently diseased and must be restored to health through medical interventions, often funded through private and public health agendas that prioritize profit over holistic care.
While medicalization ostensibly aims to alleviate blame from the individual, it ultimately shifts accountability onto those who do not lose weight via prescribed interventions, emphasizing individual failure as a primary cause of obesity. Neoliberal attitudes shift the responsibility for health issues toward the individual, asserting that personal management and choices are primarily at fault, while community and systemic complexities are often sidelined in these narratives.
The implication that fat individuals voluntarily pursue harmful behaviors feeds anti-fat rhetoric while simultaneously performing a façade of concern for their health. Communities of color, specifically Latinas/os/xs, are disproportionately affected by these narratives, with public health messages focusing on obesity prevalence among blacks and Latinos, thereby racializing fatness and obscuring the structural determinants of health.
“The Ripple Effect:” Population Growth, Contagion, and Saving the Nation-State
In discussions surrounding Latina/o/x “obesity,” interventions often target differences attributed to racial or cultural issues rather than addressing systemic inequalities affecting these communities. Coupled with narratives of high birth rates among Latina/o/xs, these discourses frame obesity as a threat to the nation-state and reflect fears of demographic changes threatening white dominance, a pattern observed throughout U.S. history.
For instance, examples of such narratives include Leo Chavez’s work, which highlights how Latina reproduction has historically been characterized as dangerous and pathological, especially following 9/11 when xenophobic sentiments intensified. Such views have real implications in policy contexts, influencing debates around immigration and healthcare with disproportionate negative effects on Latina/o/x communities.
Calls for improved health outcomes within Latina/o/x communities seldom view Latinas/os/xs as disenfranchised individuals but instead focus on their burgeoning numbers as threats to society, leading to interventions that are more punitive than supportive. The Oklahoma City case, as addressed by mayor Mick Cornett, illustrates how interventions are often attributed to humanitarian concerns for individuals, all while underpinning state anxieties about potential drains represented by undocumented populations, which further stigmatizes these communities.
Latina/o/x Futurity, Utility, and Maintaining Laboring Bodies
Contemporary policies reflect a future-oriented perspective, considering Latina/o/x communities relevant mainly in terms of their anticipated capabilities as workers for the nation-state. The RWJF’s report emphasizes that Latina/o/x children’s health directly correlates to the nation’s future productivity, positing that “nearly one in three children will be Latino by 2030.” This framing heightens the stakes associated with health disparities among Latinas/os/xs, as the future workforce’s health is inextricably linked to current interventions against obesity, underpinning economic rationality in public health decisions rather than focusing on equitable access to resources.
Moreover, the financial implications of Latina/o/x health have led to fiscal arguments for intervention – emphasizing that eliminating health disparities could significantly reduce long-term healthcare costs. Discussions focused on productivity neglect the complex realities of poverty, access to healthcare, and institutional marginalization faced by these communities, ultimately framing health interventions through an economic lens rather than a humanitarian one.
This prioritization of health and productivity reinforces a conditional acceptance of Latina/o/x individuals based on their utility as laborers, rather than affirming their rights as members of society deserving of health and well-being regardless of their productivity.
Conclusion: Medicalizing Fatness and Precarious Futures
The narrative linking Latina/o/x presence in the U.S. to obesity encourages narrow definitions of acceptable beings, where any deviation potentially results in their absence from the national narrative. This dynamic is particularly evident in public health discourses surrounding obesity, which demonstrate that the perceived growth of Latina/o/x bodies represents more than mere health problems; it translates to worries regarding their future productivity and societal contributions.
The conflation of fatness with the need for control over Latina/o/x populations highlights how contemporary discourses about health obscure the institutional and systemic racism that affects these communities. While ostensibly focusing on health intervention, underlying motives reflect an ideological commitment to curb and control unwanted populations, particularly those deemed unworthy or unproductive.
As a result, health discourses create an ultimatum for Latino/x populations, whereby their acceptance within society hinges significantly on their compliance with societal standards of health and productivity, leaving little room for their diverse identities and experiences within the broader landscape of American society.