Using a feminist materialism approach in empirical analysis

New feminist materialism theories potentially offer a foundation for exciting, innovative and creative ways to research health-related experiences from a more-than-human perspective. Donna Haraway, Karen Barad, Rosi Braidotti and Jane Bennett are among the most influential scholars in new feminist materialisms. These scholars’ writings are perhaps most inspiring for their insistence on emphasising the vitalities, perversities and vibrancies of human-nonhuman assemblages. Theirs is an affirmative ethics and politics, which celebrates the renewal and liveliness of the capacities that these assemblages generate. (See an earlier post on key approaches in new materialisms.)

A major difficulty with current feminist materialism empirical work is that a methodology for how to go about conducting it is often described in very vague terms: if indeed it is described at all. In the attempt to develop a clearer understanding of how researchers can take up and think with feminist materialism theory in qualitative health research, in this post I outline some approaches I have developed when conducting analyses of the social impact and lived experiences of digital health technologies (for example, health-related mobile phone apps, wearable monitoring devices, social media platforms and online discussion forums).  This is presented as a series of propositions and key questions that I have found inspiring to creatively think with rather than as a definitive ‘cook-book’ of methods. My approach incorporates both reflective and diffractive methods, depending on the research questions and materials I am working with. While post-qualitative and diffraction researchers sometimes overtly eschew what they view to be the overly-prescriptive approach of attempting to find themes or discourses in research materials, I would argue that this approach can be valuable, particularly if the research materials are voluminous.

These propositions and questions have been drawn from my reading of feminist materialism and other new materialisms theory, in conjunction with my review of and engagement with how other social researchers have taken up materialist approaches as I have discussed above. They can be used in relation to many kinds of social research material, including survey responses, media artefacts, art works and performances, interviews, ethnographic observations, policy documents, autoethnographies and many more. They can work to inspire and provoke ideas when formulating research approaches and analysing research materials.

Propositions

  • Research focuses on understanding and mapping ontologies of the ‘human’ (understood as a category that is difficult to define and may include ‘more-than-human’, ‘posthuman’, ‘transhuman’ and other varieties)
  • Human subjects are unstable and emergent knowing, sensing, embodied, affective assemblages of matter, thought and language
  • Humans are part of and inseparable from more-than-human worlds
  • Humans come together/gather with nonhumans to configure constantly changing assemblages
  • These assemblages generate relational connections and affective forces and agential capacities
  • Together, these connections, forces and capacities constitute thing-power
  • Because of the constantly changing nature of these assemblages, there are possibilities for change, resistances or improvisations, or for thinking otherwise
  • Power is transitory as it is enacted within and between assemblages
  • Power is both constraining and enabling
  • All matter has an agential capacity to affect and be affected
  • Researchers are part of the research assemblages they are addressing
  • Analyses are only ever partial, the results of specific agential cuts or interpretations of the research materials.

These propositions can be taken up in many different ways in more-than-human research. They can be developed into a series of key research questions that can be used to guide the ways in which empirical research is conceptualised and carried out, including the choice of how to approach the collection of research materials and their analysis. The following key research questions are some that I have developed for my studies on digital health.

 Key research questions for inquiries into digital health

  • What are the key humans and nonhumans, practices, imaginaries, assumptions and discourses operating across different spaces and sites relating to digital health?
  • What conditions of action and possibility do digital health technologies and their developers, promoters and users establish?
  • What can bodies do when coming together with digital technologies?
  • How are health, illness and healthcare configured and enacted?
  • How do humans incorporate and improvise with digital health technologies?
  • What relational connections, affective forces and agential capacities are generated?
  • What is the thing-power of these assemblages?
  • How is this thing-power constraining or enabling?
  • What are the potentials for thinking or doing otherwise?

Research materials

In a more-than-human approach to critical social analysis, many kinds of research materials can come under investigation: not only human bodies, but those of other living things, as well as non-living objects, spaces, places and atmospheres. In the context of studies of digital health technologies, these are some possibilities (among many): human bodies (or parts of them – organs, blood, sweat, tears, bones, limbs, skin, gametes, foetuses), nonhuman animals, policy documents, news articles, journals, online patient support networks, websites, search engines, telemedicine technologies, social media content (status updates, tweets, likes, shares, hashtags), photographs, television programs, films, videos, audio recordings, digital memes, GIFs, robots, hospitals, clinics, waiting rooms, homes, furniture, clothing, wearable devices, apps, mobile devices, video games, sounds, smells, tastes, haptic sensations, digital datasets, art works, design artefacts, heart pacemakers, continuous glucose monitors, cities, rural landscapes, air, earth, water, sunshine … the list is infinitely expandable.

Examples

I have published some articles recently that apply these approaches to empirical research materials. These can be found open access at the links below:

  • ‘”I just want it to be done, done, done!” Food tracking apps, affects and agential capacities’ (here)
  • ‘Vitalities and visceralities: alternative food/body politics in new digital media’ (here)
  • ‘”A much better person”: the agential capacities of self-tracking practices’ (here)
  • ‘Wearable devices: sociotechnical imaginaries and agential capacities’ (here)
  • ‘The more-than–human sensorium: sensory engagements with digital self-tracking technologies’ (here)
  • ‘Vital materialism and the thing-power of lively data’ (here)

 

 

Fat 2nd edition now published

Fat second edition

 

The second edition of my book Fat has now been published, with a great new cover. This version is twice as long as the first edition. Each chapter has been revised and updated and there is a lot more material in the new edition on how digital material represents fat bodies (for example, memes, GIFs, YouTube, hashtags, selfies and social media platforms such as Tumblr, Twitter and Instagram).

My author’s preface to the second edition is below. The link to the book on Google Books is here, which provides a preview of more content.

The first edition of Fat was completed in 2012, a time at which academic interest in understanding the discourses, practices and politics around fat bodies had been intensifying for some years. Several years later, this topic of study remains a fulcrum where various issues and controversies concerning identities and embodiment converge and intensify. To some extent, the panic about the so-called ‘obesity epidemic’ has died down, perhaps due to the news media losing interest and other health issues receiving policy attention. Meanwhile, the views of fat activists have made greater ingress into public debates about obesity; if remaining subject to controversy or denial. Some of the topics I covered in the first edition have become more complex, with new research paying greater attention to the intersectoral aspects of fat embodiment: how social class, ethnicity or race, sexual identity, age and geographical location shape experiences. Further discussion has sparked up around the question of who can speak about or advocate for fat people or engage in critical analyses of obesity politics – must they be fat-identifying people or can others participate in these debates?

Since I wrote the first edition, as part of a turn towards the visual in popular culture, the representation of human bodies of all shapes and sizes have received greater levels of coverage in new digital media forums. These media offer many more opportunities for self-representation and for body positive and fat activists to draw attention to their causes. However, the fit and thin body continues to dominate in these forums as the ideal body type, often around the ‘fitspiration’ label. Social media allow the vilification and stigmatizing of fat people to intensify and be more easily distributed to ever-larger audiences. New digital media and devices promote a culture of intensified self-monitoring and measuring of bodies, and comparing them against norms. Many more apps and wearable devices have come onto the market, aimed at encouraging and helping people to count calories and track their physical activity and body weight in the interests of conforming to these ideals. These media, therefore, have made bodies of all sizes ever-more visible and subject to private monitoring and public display. These issues and topics all receive attention in this second revised edition.

 

Using feminist materialism to analyse app use

food-apps1.png

I’ve been working with feminist materialism theories to understand how people take up and engage with digital media such as apps, social media and wearable devices. I’ve just had an article published, drawing from the Australian Women and Digital Health Project, which draws on a feminist materialism approach to present six vignettes from participants about their use and non-use of food tracking apps.

Here’s the abstract – the entire article is available open access here.

Food-tracking apps constitute a major category of the thousands of food-related apps now available. They are promoted as helping users monitor and measure their food consumption to improve their health or to lose weight. In this article, I present six vignettes drawn from interviews with Australian women about their use and non-use of food-tracking apps. The vignettes provide detailed insights into the experiences of these women and their broader sociocultural and biographical contexts. The analysis is based on feminist materialism theoretical perspectives, seeking to identify the relational connections, affective forces, and agential capacities generated in and through the human-app assemblage. The vignettes reveal that affective forces related to the desire to control and manage the body and conform to norms and ideals about good health and body weight inspire people to try food-tracking apps. However, the agential capacities promised by app developers may not be generated even when people have committed hope and effort in using the app. Frustration, disappointment, the fear of becoming too controlled, and annoyance or guilt evoked by the demands of the app can be barriers to continued and successful use. Sociocultural and biographical contexts and relational connections are also central to the capacities of human-app assemblages. Women’s ambivalences about using apps as part of efforts to control their body weight are sited within their struggles to conform to accepted ideals of physical appearance but also their awareness that these struggles may be too limiting of their agency. This analysis, therefore, draws attention to what a body can and cannot do as it comes together with food tracking apps.

Digital health promotion: possibilities and limitations

 

Pinterest health

Health and fitness content on Pinterest

 

On Tuesday I am giving an invited presentation at an event organised by VicHealth on the theme of ‘Harnessing the Power of Digital Technologies’. Some of the issues I’ll be focusing on include covering the different ways in which digital devices and software are used for health promotion, and what the social issues are. I’ll be drawing on my recent and current research projects looking at the social aspects of how people use digital health and self-tracking technologies (see my blog post summarising the findings of these projects here).

The critical sociological approach I’ll be advancing is discussed in a range of my publications over the past few years. The most recent of these publications include my book Digital Health: Critical and Cross-Disciplinary Perspectives, a chapter on wearable devices (available OA here), an article on what health professionals and healthcare consumers see as valuable about digital health and what its future may be (available OA here), a special journal issue I edited on self-tracking, health and medicine (the editorial for this is OA here) and an article reporting my research project on the use of social media by healthcare workers (available OA here).

Here are some of the points I’ll be making in my talk:

Among public health and health promotion professionals, social media campaigns and dedicated websites are popular forms of communicating with target groups. These approaches often take an individualistic and to-down approach, using old-style paternalistic health education and social marketing models of behaviour change and applying them to the new media contexts. They often fail to recognise that people are spontaneously and actively searching for information about health and medicine on the internet and using social media and apps to generate and share this information.

Health promotion professionals are competing for consumer engagement with a digital health ecosystem in which the commercial/corporate sector offers a far more compelling range of products. It was estimated last year that there are over 325,000 health and medical apps available on the major app stores. Social media are now a key site for the dissemination of health-related news and information. People use Facebook, Instagram, Tumblr, Twitter and Pinterest to access and share information about health, medical care and physical fitness. A large range of blogs and discussion forums have been established for people to have a say on health-related matters and respond to others. Wearable devices like Fitbit and Apple Watch provide opportunities for people to monitor and measure their health and fitness levels.

Visual media have become important in people’s engagements online, including selfies, memes, GIFs and videos. YouTube offers countless videos made by consumers about their health and fitness experiences and insights. ‘Healthy lifestyle’ influencers on platforms like Instagram and YouTube have a huge reach and impact, particularly for young people. Hashtags like #fitspo, #cleaneating, #fitnessaddict, #iquitsugar, #wellness and #weightlossjourney are used to organise content and attract like-minded audiences. Communities that challenge mainstream health promotion messages and seek to promote resistant modes of embodiment use hashtags like #badfatty, #thinspo, #proana, #selfinjury and #blithe (used for content about self-harm, eating disorders and depression), particularly on Tumblr.

My research on how public health professionals use social media found that they recognised that these communication channels were important for consumer engagement and also found them beneficial to connect with other professionals working in their fields. However, they experienced many constraints such as lack of institutional knowledge about how best to use social media, rules about not using social media in the workplace, lack of access to the internet, or peers disapproving of social media. If they were working in a contentious or sensitive area of public health, these professionals had to consider the possibility of being attacked by members of the public on social media, or inadvertently saying the wrong thing publicly.

There is a need for a social perspective on digitised health promotion. The different ways in which social groups use and respond to digitised health promotion need to be considered (for example, attributes such as gender, age, social class, education level, ethnic/racial background, health status and geographical location). My research identifies several key differences between the different groups I have included. For example, women with young children use Facebook a lot for sharing information about pregnancy and childcare and to arrange in-person meetings. Young people, on the other hand, prefer YouTube, Instagram and Snapchat to access and share health information. My project on self-tracking cyclists found that they loved to use platforms like Strava to share their data and compete with and provide support to each other. In contrast, my project on everyday self-trackers, who monitored a range of attributes about their bodies and lives, and another of my projects on women’s use of digital health technologies, found that very few were interested in sharing their data with others beyond family members or their doctors.

Personal data privacy and security are important issues when discussing how digital technologies can be used for health promotion. Across my research projects, there was very little awareness of or concern about how internet companies and app developers collect, use and share people’s often very sensitive health-related information when they engage with these technologies. This included public health professionals, who were not considering these issues in relation to their work-related activities.

Some findings from my research on Australians’ use of digital health and self-tracking technologies

Today I am giving a keynote presentation at the Australian Telehealth Conference 2018 in Sydney. I am talking about the findings of four empirical projects I have conducted over the past three years on Australians’ use of digital health and self-tracking technologies.

Here are some of the key findings I will be discussing.

Women’s Use of Apps and Other Digital Media for Pregnancy and Parenting Project

This project involved two parts: an online survey completed by 410 women around Australia and a focus group study involving women living in Sydney. All participants were either pregnant or had at least one child aged 3 years or under at the time of the research.

The participants were keen users of Google Search, constantly using it to find information. They also often used pregnancy apps (three-quarters of the survey participants) and parenting apps (half of the survey participants). Facebook was popular as well, especially for establishing local mothers’ groups that included opportunities to meet face-to-face and share local knowledge. The participants valued websites and online discussion forums as ways of seeking and providing support 24/7. They sought information, reassurance and social connections through these digital media. For many women, digital media were life-lines at times when they were struggling with loneliness, anxiety and the significant demands of caring for babies and young children.

Publications from this project can be found here, here and here.

Self-tracking Cyclists Project

This project involved female and male commuting cyclists in Canberra and Melbourne who regularly used digital technologies (bike computers, apps, wearable devices, cycling platforms) to track their rides. We used GoPro cameras worn on the cyclists’ helmets to videotape one of their cycling commutes, and interviewed the participants while watching the video together. We were interested in how they incorporated the use of digital self-tracking into their everyday routines, and how they engaged with the data generated by these practices.

We found that most of the cyclists enjoyed tracking their rides to monitor their fitness or speeds, to compete against other cyclists or to document their personal bests on platforms like Strava. Some responded to their data in real-time as they cycled, particularly if they used a bike computer they could easily consult while in motion. These people found self-tracking to be motivating, giving them confidence and feelings of accomplishment when they could see that their speed or fitness were improving.

Publications from this project can be found  here, here, here and here.

Australian Self-Trackers Project

This project involved semi-structured telephone interviews with women and men across Australia who identified as a ‘self-tracker’ for any reason, using any kind of method, digital or non-digital.

The findings from this project demonstrated that while digital self-tracking technologies were popular, especially computer spreadsheets and apps, many people were using the time-honoured paper-and-pen form of recording their information, or even just committing details to memory. It was common for people to use a combination of these methods to track a range of indicators. The most popular aspects they were tracking were food/nutrition, physical fitness or activity levels and body weight, but tracking finances, blood pressure, sleep, work productivity, social relationships, medication, home energy use, chronic health conditions, moods and alcohol were also common. Unlike the self-tracking cyclists, few of these participants were interested in sharing their data with others, and few were motivated by competitive challenges. They saw self-tracking as a largely private endeavour, undertaken to  collect information as a way of ‘being responsible’ and exerting control over their health and lives.

The production of publications from this project is still in progress. One book chapter has been generated from it thus far and can be found here.

Australian Women and Digital Health Project

This project involved a combination of focus groups, face-to-face semi-structured interviews and telephone interviews with Australian women across a range of age-groups. They were asked to talk about which kinds of digital health technologies they used and which they found most valuable and useful.

Here again, the importance of Google Search as a tool to find health information was to the fore. Almost every participant said that they regularly googled to search for information.  They also used websites regularly for health information, often directed to them by searching online. In-person interactions with doctors or other healthcare professionals as well as family and friends were still important sources of health information, but the opportunity to go online at any time was highly valued by these participants. Many searched for health information on behalf of their family members (partners, children – even adult children – or elderly parents) as part of their familial caring roles. Traditional media (books, television, radio) were hardly mentioned at all as a source of health information, although pamphlets were still consulted quite often when women were waiting to see the doctor. These women valued the access they had online to international sources of information, but still placed a lot of importance on being able to find Australian-based information and information that was specific to their local area. It was notable that none of these women used a fitness platform like Strava, although calorie-counting apps and Fitbits were quite popular.

Analysis from this project is in progress.

Findings from across the projects

  • Websites and search engines (particularly Google Search) remain very important and highly-used sources of online health information.
  • The broader ecosystem of technologies, including non-digital as well as digital, needs to be acknowledged.
  • People are still not generally interested or concerned about who can access their personal health data generated from their online interactions or app use.
  • When participants were asked what their ideal digital health or self-tracking technology would be, the most common responses were for tools that could be readily customised and personalised, or which could bring a lot of information or functions together in the one place. This could be an app or a website/platform.
  • Factors such as people’s age, gender, caring responsibilities, working conditions, state of health, whether they are living with a disability, demands on their time and relationships and interactions with other people (both in person and online) are important contributors to their lived experiences of digital health and self-tracking technologies.
  • The biographical features of people’s lives also emerged as central: such turning points as hitting a landmark birthday, the birth of children, or developing a chronic illness were key factors in people making changes in their lives related to their use of digital media and devices for health.

Frankenstein, Black Mirror, and personal data

Frankenstein

 

This year marks the 200-year anniversary of the publication of Mary Shelley’s classic Gothic novel Frankenstein, or the Modern Prometheus. This novel has become a cultural icon, largely due to the figure of the creature, the strange monster cobbled together from stolen body parts and reanimated by the scientist Dr Victor Frankenstein. Dr Frankenstein is obsessed with creating life from non-living matter. He eventually creates a humanoid creature which resembles a human in many aspects, although it is much larger and has an unearthly appearance that marks it as clearly not-human. Frankenstein is repulsed by the creature, which escapes his laboratory. The creature, for its part, finds its own appearance hideous, and experiences rejection from the people it encounters because it looks so strange and frightening. Eventually the creature turns murderous, wanting to wreak vengeance on its creator for its lonely and disturbed existence.

The story of Frankenstein’s creature and its creator is a dark moral tale, in which Shelley vividly speculates on the ways in which humans’ ambitions to tinker with nature can go badly wrong. A central theme in this moral tale is the figure of the creature itself, in its eerie, almost-human-like appearance and sensibility. The creature has human feelings and emotions, needs and desires, but it looks too strange and monstrous to be able to be accepted by humans, and its rage and despair eventually overwhelms it.

The novel raises important ethical and ontological questions about what it means to be human, how novel technologies can disturb the definition and meaning of the human, and how scientific innovation can threaten humanity. It demonstrates the affective power of the more-than-human world, when parts of humans come together in new ways to create new forms of human – or almost-human – life.

These days, a range of speculative fiction accounts represent digital technologies as creating monstrous new formations of humanity. Thus, for example, many episodes of the dystopian television series Black Mirror centre on the ways in which people’s digitally monitored and archived data can be used to replicate, manipulate, observe, control or betray them. In the most obvious reference to Frankenstein’s monster, in ‘Be Right Back’ (series 2), a grieving woman uses a digital service that draws on the archive of her dead husband’s online interactions to first talk to a digitised version of him on the phone, then create him in the flesh. Although at first she finds it comforting to have this post-death replicant of her partner with her, she soon finds him disturbing and annoying, as he is not able to properly display the human quirks of the real man she knew and loved. In ‘Arkangel’ (series 4), a child is relentlessly monitored by her anxious mother using a digital device that reveals the girl’s perspective on the world and monitors biometrics such as her heart rate and adrenaline levels. Once the girl reaches adolescence and becomes aware of the privacy-invasion that she is subjected to, she is driven to anger and violence against her mother because of the violation she feels. In ‘Crocodile’ (series 4), a device is used to access memories, again with violent consequences when a woman feels as if she can no longer keep her secrets. In ‘Nosedive’ (series 3), people use their smart devices constantly to rank and rate each other, with the resultant data affecting their life opportunities.  ‘Playtest’ (series 3) depicts a computer game-like scenario, when again people’s memories are accessed by a digital device to make the game as frightening as possible by invoking their deepest fears. ‘The Entire History of You’ (series 1), involves a man wracked by jealousy who forces his partner to ‘rewind’ her memories to prove her infidelity, which then destroys their relationship.

All of these Black Mirror episodes (and several others in the series) depict the nightmarish ways in which personal data can be used to monitor, frighten, humiliate and punish people, particularly in imagined scenarios when digital devices can be used to constantly record, preserve and ‘download’ these data. Like Frankenstein’s monster, these personal data are new forms or extensions of human life. More than data doubles or doppelgangers, these personal data have their own liveliness, their own worlds, that exist beyond the purview of the humans who created them. They are constantly changing and moving into new formations. I have elsewhere suggested that we can think of personal digital data as companion species, living with and co-evolving with us.

In their more-than-human presence, personal data assemblages have the potential to evoke the ‘uncanny valley’, or the affective responses from humans to objects they have created that are marked by feelings of eeriness, uncertainty, discomfort, and a sense that something is ‘not quite right’. Humanoid robots are often described as evoking uncanny valley responses, but they can occur in response to other digital as well as non-digital humanoid artefacts, such as masks, dolls, puppets, zombies, human prosthetics, characters in films generated by computer graphic manipulation (sometimes referred to as ‘digital actors’) and avatars in computer games.

The representations of personal data and their consequences in Black Mirror, I would argue, go some way to highlighting the uncanny and potentially uncontrolled, and in some cases, disastrous implications of generating and storing these pieces of information about people. From the ambivalence of the uncanny valley to the monstrosities of data betrayals, the near-future of personal data is imagined in unsettling scenarios.

Photo credit: Flickr image by Robert Couse-Baker, CC By 2.0

Critical art and design projects about digital data

 

8530310771_f961b14b9e_m

For a while now, I have sought out the work of artists and designers who are working on interesting critical projects related to digital data, particularly personal data (as this is one of my main research interests). I have discussed some of this work in several of my publications, including my book on the sociology of the quantified self.

A recent tweet asking the Twitter ‘hive mind’ whose work they knew about generated many more additions (thank you to those who contributed).

Here’s a list that I have subsequently put together – I am sure it is by no means comprehensive, but at least it’s a start!

Autonomous Tech Fetish

Max Dovey

Dear Data

Lucy Kimbell

Thecla Schiphorst

Institute of Human Obsolescence

Tom O’Dea

Erica Scouti

Critical Interface Politics Research Group

Tega Brain

Pip Thornton

Data Materialities

Melanie Gilligan

Mitchell Whitelaw

David Benque

Zach Blas

James Bridle

Laurie Frick

Ted Hunt

Poetry in Data

Data Cuisine

The Center for Genomic Gastronomy

Grow Your Own: Life After Nature (exhibition)

panGenerator

Benjamin Grosser

Superflux

LingQL

Ellie Harrison

Heather Dewy-Hagborg

Julian Oliver

Gordan Savicic

Jennifer Lyn Morone

Brian House

Auger Loizeau

 

Photo credit: Fee Plumley: CC By 2.0 (found on Flickr)

Second edition of my book Fat out soon

I have revised and significantly expanded my book Fat (it is now double the length) for its second edition, due to be published mid-year. The book now includes much more material on new digital media and devices, and how they are used to contain, control and portray fat embodiment (often in very negative ways).

Here’s an excerpt from new material I have added to my chapter addressing the transgressive fat body, focusing on memes, GIFs and stock images.

My Google search for ‘fat memes’ found memes that not only stigmatize fat bodies, but are blatantly abusive and often cruel. Just some examples I came across include unflattering images of fat people with texts such as ‘I’m fat because obesity runs in my family. No-one runs in your family’, ‘I’m lazy because I’m fat and I’m fat because I’m lazy’ and ‘Sometimes when I’m sad I like to cut myself … another slice of cheesecake’. When I looked for ‘fat’ GIFs on the GIFY platform, here again were many negative portrayals of fat people, including cartoon characters like Homer Simpson as well as real people, again engaging in humiliating bodily performances. Many of these GIFs showed people jiggling their abdomens or dancing to demonstrate the magnitude of their flesh, belly flopping into swimming pools, eating greedily, smeared with food and so on. Here again, fat white men predominated as targets of ridicule.

Many companies now offer stock images for others to use to illustrate news articles, blog posts or reports. Searching for stock images online for ‘fat people eating’ returns a series of photographs and drawings that invariably depict the types of food consumed by fat people as archetypal high-calorie, fat-laden or fast food. Fat women, men and children are shown biting into or gazing at foods such as hamburgers, pizzas, French fries, fried chicken or cream cake, often with a look of greed on their faces and reclining on an over-stuffed armchair or sofa. Some of these people are scantily dressed or wearing clothes that reveal their large stomachs. One image even transposes a fat man with a hamburger, so that his body becomes the hamburger, topped with his head. Another depicts a hamburger as a hungry beast with a gaping maw consuming a man so that all that can be seen of his body is his legs. Some people are shown with links of sausages around their necks. The words used to describe these images are telling, as in these descriptions: ‘photo of a fat couch potato eating a huge hamburger and watching television’, ‘overweight woman greedily biting sweet cake’.

These types of images emphasize the enticements offered by foodstuff that are portrayed in popular and medical cultures as ‘unhealthy’ and ‘fattening’, pandering to greed and self-indulgence. These foods are depicted in some extreme cases as overwhelming human bodies, both in terms of expanding the size of bodies (and particularly of bellies) and in rendering humans helpless and devoured by their lust for these foods. It is as if these foods are controlling humans through the intensity of people’s desire to consume (and be consumed by) them.

Similar sentiments and images can be found in memes about food, regardless of whether the people represented in them are fat or not. These memes often display a high level of ambivalence about experiencing the desire for the ‘wrong’ foods, the pleasure of eating them and the guilt or self-hatred that may result from indulgence. Such food memes may depict large helpings of ‘junk’ foods with people viewing them with hungry expressions. Others dispense with any images of food itself, and simply show people looking eager or happy, and words such as ‘When people ask when I want to eat. Every day. All day. Anywhere. Anytime’, or ‘I’m on a seafood diet. I see food and eat it.’ Animals (especially cats) are used to stand in for people, as in the meme showing a cat desperately clawing its way through a venetian blind and the words, ‘Did somebody say food?’, and another featuring a close-up of a cat with its mouth stuffed with food, captioned ‘I regret nothing. Nothing.’ In these memes, whether or not food is shown, the dominant feelings that are expressed are the insatiable longing for food and the lack of control people have over their appetites, to the point that they are overwhelming.

My 2017 publications

Books

Lupton, D. (2017) Digital Health: Critical and Cross-Disciplinary Perspectives. London: Routledge.

Lupton, D., Mewburn, I. and Thomson, P. (eds) (2017) The Digital Academic: Critical Perspectives on Digital Technologies in Higher Education. London: Routledge.

Lupton, D. (editor) (2017) Self-Tracking, Health and Medicine: Sociological Perspectives. London: Routledge.

Special journal issues edited

‘Health, medicine and self-tracking’, Health Sociology Review (volume 26, issue 1), 2017 (also published as a book)

‘Digital media and body weight’, Fat Studies (volume 6, issue 2), 2017

‘The senses and digital health’, Digital Health (volume 3), 2017

Book chapters

Lupton, D. (2017) 3D printed self replicas: personal digital data made solid. In McGillivray, D, Carnicelli, S. and McPherson, G. (eds), Digital Leisure Cultures: Critical Perspectives. London: Routledge, pp. 26—38. (PDF Lupton 2017 3D self-replicas chapter).

Gard, M. and Lupton, D. (2017) Digital health goes to school: digitising children’s bodies in health and physical education. In Taylor, E. and Rooney, T. (eds), Surveillance Futures: Social and Ethical Implications of New Technologies for Children and Young People. London: Routledge, pp. 36—49. (PDF Gard Lupton 2017 digital health goes to school chapter)

Lupton, D. (2017) Digital bodies. In Silke, M., Andrews, D. and Thorpe, H. (eds), The Routledge Handbook of Physical Cultural Studies. London: Routledge, pp. 200—208. (PDF Lupton 2017 digital bodies chapter)

Lupton, D. (2017) Personal data practices in the age of lively data. In Daniels, J., Gregory, K. and McMillan Cottom, T. (eds), Digital Sociologies. London: Policy Press, 335—350. (PDF Lupton 2017 personal data practices in the age of lively data chapter)

Lupton, D., Mewburn, I. and Thomson, P. (2017) The digital academic: identities, contexts and politics. In Lupton, D., Mewburn, I. and Thomson, P. (eds), The Digital Academic: Critical Perspectives on Digital Technologies in Higher Education. London: Routledge, 1-19. (PDF Lupton Mewburn Thomson 2017 digital academic chapter)

Lupton, D. (2017) Cooking, eating, uploading: digital food cultures. In LeBesco, K. and Naccarato, P. (eds), The Handbook of Food and Popular Culture. London: Bloomsbury. (PDF Lupton 2017 cooking eating uploading chapter)

Journal articles

Lupton, D. and Williamson, B. (2017) The datafied child: the dataveillance of children and implications for their rights. New Media & Society, 19(5), 780—794.

Pink, S., Sumartojo, S., Lupton, D. and Heyes Labond, C. (2017) Mundane data: the routines, contingencies and accomplishments of digital living. Big Data & Society, 4(1), online, available at http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/2053951717700924

Thomas, G., Lupton, D. and Pedersen, S. (2017) ‘The appy for a happy pappy’: expectant fatherhood and pregnancy apps. Journal of Gender Studies, online ahead of print: doi:10.1080/09589236.2017.1301813

Lupton, D. (2017) How does digital health feel? Towards research on the affective atmospheres of digital health technologies. Digital Health, 3, online, available at http://journals.sagepub.com/eprint/ZCuMrRHMP3RsH9Z8f9v7/full

Lupton, D. and Michael, M. (2017) For me, the biggest benefit is being ahead of the game’: the use of social media in health work. Social Media + Society, 3(2), online, available at http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/2056305117702541

Lupton, D. (2017) Digital media and body weight, shape and size: an introduction and review. Fat Studies, 6(2), 119-134.

Lupton, D. and Michael, M. (2017) ‘Depends on who’s got the data’: public understandings of personal digital dataveillance. Surveillance and Society, 15(2), 254—268.

Lupton, D. (2017) ‘It just gives me a bit of peace of mind’: Australian women’s use of digital media for pregnancy and early motherhood. Societies, 7(3), online, available at http://www.mdpi.com/2075-4698/7/3/25/htm

Lupton, D. and Maslen, S. (2017) Telemedicine and the senses: a review. Sociology of Health & Illness, 39(8), 1557-1571.

Lupton, D. (2017) Feeling your data: touch and making sense of personal digital data. New Media & Society, 19(10), 1599-1614.

Lupton, D. (2017) ‘Download to delicious’: promissory themes and sociotechnical imaginaries in coverage of 3D printed food in online news sources. Futures, 93, 44-53.

Lupton, D. (2017) Towards design sociology. Sociology Compass, online ahead of print: doi:10.1111/soc4.12546

Lupton, D. (2017) Digital health now and in the future: findings from a participatory design stakeholder workshop. Digital Health, 3, online, available at http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/2055207617740018

Pink, S., Sumartojo, S., Lupton, D. and Heyes Labond, C. (2017) Empathetic technologies: digital materiality and video ethnography. Visual Studies, 32(4), 371-381.

Editorials

Lupton, D. (2017) Towards sensory studies of digital health. Digital Health, 3, online, available at http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/2055207617740090

Lupton, D. (2017) Self-tracking, health and medicine. Health Sociology Review, 26(1), 1—5.

Design sociology review

HealthTech (42 of 60)

Earlier this year, I published four posts about design sociology. At the time, I was working on a review article on the topic for Sociology Compass. The article has now been published – see here. It’s behind a paywall, but I’m happy to send you a copy if you email me.

This is the abstract:

In this review essay, I introduce and map the field of what I call “design sociology”. I argue that design research methods have relevance to a wide range of sociological research interests, and particularly for applied research that seeks to understand people’s engagements with objects, systems and services, better engage publics and other stakeholders, work towards social change, and identify and intervene in futures. I discuss 3 main ways in which design sociology can be conducted: the sociology of design, sociology through design and sociology with design. I explain key terms in design and dominant approaches in social design research—participatory, critical, adversarial, speculative, and ludic design. Examples of how sociologists have already engaged with design research methods are outlined. The essay concludes with suggestions about what the future directions of design sociology might be.