Interpretive Frame
This essay examines the experiences of fat persons in the United States through the lens of humiliation rather than shame, arguing that weight stigma is best understood as a relational and systemic violation of dignity rather than an internal moral failure. Drawing on interpretative phenomenological research, integral theory, and social constructionism, it reframes fatness as a site where power, recognition, and exclusion converge.
Shame and Humiliation: A Necessary Distinction
Public discourse in the United States routinely frames fatness through the language of shame: personal failure, lack of discipline, moral weakness. This framing is not accidental. Shame locates the problem within the individual. It invites self-surveillance, self-blame, and corrective behavior. Shame asks the fat person to look inward and conclude, “Something is wrong with me.”
Humiliation operates differently.
As established in my dissertation, humiliation is not primarily an intrapsychic phenomenon. It is a relational and power-laden experience in which one party is positioned as lesser by another who possesses greater social authority. Shame may arise internally, but humiliation requires an external agent and a perceived injustice. People believe they deserve their shame; they do not believe they deserve their humiliation.
This distinction matters profoundly for understanding fatness in the United States. Fat persons are not merely experiencing negative self-regard. They are repeatedly placed into situations where their social standing is diminished—through ridicule, exclusion, medical neglect, employment discrimination, and public surveillance—by individuals and institutions that wield power over them. These experiences are humiliating precisely because they are imposed, relational, and unfair.
Fatness as a Social Construction, Not a Personal Defect
From a social constructionist perspective, fatness is not a self-evident problem located in bodies. It is a meaning produced within cultural, economic, medical, and moral systems. Bodies do not humiliate themselves. Cultures humiliate bodies by assigning them inferior status.
My research situates fatness within the field of Fat Studies, which rejects the medicalized and moralized framing of weight as pathology or failure. Instead, Fat Studies asks what individuals and societies make of human weight diversity. The United States makes fatness into a moral problem. This moralization licenses humiliation.
Language plays a crucial role. Terms such as “obese” and “overweight” do not merely describe bodies; they define, limit, and exclude. Naming is an act of power. To define is to set boundaries around belonging. When fat persons are named as problems, risks, or burdens, they are positioned outside full participation in the social world. This is not neutral description; it is social sorting.
Dignity, Recognition, and the Structure of Humiliation
A central contribution of my dissertation is its challenge to the dominant assumption that human dignity is inherent and therefore inviolable. While dignity may be philosophically asserted as inherent, lived experience tells a different story. Dignity functions socially through recognition and respect.
Drawing on relational theory and scholars such as Arendt and Fischer, my work argues that dignity is not simply possessed; it is conferred through membership in a community. One becomes fully human, socially speaking, through recognition by others. Humiliation, then, is not the stripping away of an internal essence but the withdrawal of recognition.
For fat persons, humiliation frequently takes the form of being rendered invisible, excluded, or treated as less worthy of care, desire, or opportunity. Medical encounters where bodies are avoided or blamed, workplaces where competence is discounted, and public spaces where fat bodies are mocked or surveilled all function as denials of recognition. These are not isolated insults; they are systemic signals about who belongs.
Humiliation Through an AQAL Lens
Applying the AQAL (All Quadrants, All Levels) framework reveals the full complexity of weight-based humiliation.
Interior–Individual (Upper Left):
Fat persons often engage in sensemaking processes shaped by repeated humiliating encounters. Emotions such as anger, sadness, or despair arise not because of body size per se, but because of chronic misrecognition.
Exterior–Individual (Upper Right):
Behavioral responses emerge—avoidance of public spaces, medical care, or social encounters. These responses are frequently misinterpreted as lack of motivation rather than protective strategies.
Interior–Collective (Lower Left):
Cultural narratives equate thinness with virtue and fatness with failure. These shared meanings create the moral atmosphere in which humiliation becomes normalized.
Exterior–Collective (Lower Right):
Institutional practices—employment discrimination, inadequate seating, biased healthcare protocols, and media representations—materialize these cultural narratives into lived consequences.
Across all quadrants, humiliation is not accidental. It is patterned. It is reproduced through systems that reward conformity and punish deviation.
The EIR Cycle: How Humiliation Is Lived and Reproduced
Participants in my study engaged in a cyclical process I term the Experiences–Interpretations–Responses (EIR) Cycle. A humiliating experience (being mocked, excluded, or dismissed) generates interpretations (“I do not belong,” “I am unsafe here”), which inform responses (withdrawal, resistance, self-protection). These responses then shape future experiences, often reinforcing isolation.
Importantly, this cycle operates at micro, meso, and macro levels. Individual encounters reflect institutional practices, which are sustained by cultural meanings. Humiliation is thus not a singular event but an ongoing relational process.
Why Reframing Matters
When fatness is framed as shame, the solution is self-correction. When it is framed as humiliation, the responsibility shifts. The question becomes not “What is wrong with fat people?” but “What kind of society produces these forms of exclusion?”
Reframing fatness through humiliation exposes the moral costs of a culture that withholds recognition. It also reveals the limits of interventions focused solely on individual behavior. Dignity cannot be restored through weight loss alone. It requires structural and relational change.
Conclusion: Toward Recognition
Humiliation associated with being fat in the United States is not incidental. It is a socially constructed, relationally enacted denial of dignity. Distinguishing humiliation from shame allows us to see how power operates through bodies, how recognition is granted or withheld, and how individuals make sense of their lives within these constraints.
If dignity is constituted through recognition, then the work ahead is not correction but inclusion. Not fixing bodies, but transforming the social world that decides which bodies count.
Cite this article as follows:
Green, R. K. (2025). Humiliation, not shame: Fatness, power, and the denial of recognition in the United States. The Emergent Self. https://theemergentself.com/humiliation-not-shame-fatness-power-and-the-denial-of-recognition-in-the-united-states/
Discover more from The Emergent Self
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.