When plump was a pleasing word

It was only at the turn of the 20th century that a high enough proportion of Westerners had so much food that thinness resulting from self-denial became the standard of beauty. 

Recently, I finished a route in the rock climbing gym and someone said to me, “That’s pretty stout!” I was confused and maybe a little insulted. Was he, out of the blue, calling me fat?  

My reaction had a lot to do with how fraught the issue of “fat” is in American society today. On one hand, we have very negative attitudes about it. Obesity is considered a grave health concern, and standards of beauty skew very much toward the thin. But on the other, there is a growing “body positive” movement that encourages people of all sizes to see their bodies as beautiful.  

The word thick, which we looked at last week, goes along with this movement; it is a wholly positive term that celebrates “bigger” bodies. Fat, in contrast, is a word that is inherently stigmatizing.

A commonly accepted historical narrative holds that in the past, fatness was culturally appreciated. It was a sign that you were healthy and wealthy enough to eat three meals a day. It was only at the turn of the 20th century that a high enough proportion of Westerners had so much food that thinness resulting from self-denial became the standard of beauty.  

Do the terms we used in the past to talk about “fatness” support this story?

In the 19th century, doctors advocated “plumpness.” Dr. T.C. Duncan’s 1878 guide, “How to Be Plump,” describes this state as beneficial both to one’s health and to one’s looks and is filled with advice about how to “get fleshy.”  

Plumpness, though, was a state of moderation. If you got too fleshy, you became corpulent, and this was considered to be unhealthy and unattractive.

The word fat itself combined these dual senses from its very first uses. A 13th-century historian praised King Henry I, describing him as a “fair man ... and fat also,” while the ideal early medieval woman was “fat, tender, and beautiful.” Yet fatness was also moralized, associated with the sin of gluttony.

As these words show, we have always been of two minds about fatness. In the 20th century, though, its positive aspects largely dropped out of the picture. The body positive activists who fight “fat-shaming” are in a way restoring the balance we have lost.       

As for stout, I had forgotten that it isn’t just a negative term for “short and fat.” It also means “brave,” “determined,” “strong,” and “vigorous,” as in “a stout defense.” King Henry I could have been stout as well as fat. Among climbers, a stout route is a tough one. It was a compliment.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.
Real news can be honest, hopeful, credible, constructive.
What is the Monitor difference? Tackling the tough headlines – with humanity. Listening to sources – with respect. Seeing the story that others are missing by reporting what so often gets overlooked: the values that connect us. That’s Monitor reporting – news that changes how you see the world.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.

QR Code to When plump was a pleasing word
Read this article in
QR Code to Subscription page
Start your subscription today