Spheres of argument: When does one’s body no longer belong to oneself?

In the controversy about whether or not Hooters should have fired Cassie and Leanne, CBS (May 2010) did a news story entitled, “Too Fat for Hooters? Will Cassie Smith Lose Her Short Shorts? (PICTURES),” which featured a short story as well as 23 pictures of Cassie as a way in which to spur discussion about the on-going case.  In a later blog post, I will discuss the visual aspects of this story, but for now I want to focus on the type(s) of argument being advanced.

At the end of the article, the news writer asked the public to comment, with the following questions: “The question remains...how big is too big at Hooters?  What do you think? Did Hooters have the right to fire her for her weight?”  In this way, the public audience is asked to comment on the situation. 

There are a few ways in which they can engage the question, privately, publically or technically (based on Goodnight’s spheres of argument piece).  To argue based upon the private sphere deals with personal matters, where one can simply say that they think so in order to “win” an argument.  The technical sphere involves a specialized form of reasoning, including jargon and community norms.  It limits evidence and judgment to a particular field.  For example, scientists often use particular terminology to discuss the effects of global warming.  The public sphere includes public issues, where the goal is public deliberation and engagement on civic issues.  Each of the different spheres demonstrates a different grounding for argument.  Now, even though the discussion occurs on an online site, the place or site of the argument does not determine if it is private, public or technical.  Additionally, the open ended nature of the question offers an opportunity to see how people will ground their arguments, and as a way to test out Goodnight’s spheres. 

Absent from most of the discussion is a focus on the technical.  No discussion of BMI (body mass index), what the government, scientists, or nutritionists suggest as an appropriate body weight.  Additionally, very little discussion focuses on the legality of the issue.  One comment by Focused2010 does include an argument by analogy, where the poster compares the ongoing case to the airline industry: “When you get hired on at Hooters, you know the rules...it is about appearance. If the company thinks you are too fat and offer to pay for a gym -- take it -- that is if you really want the job. Since the airline industry standards for their stewardess went to h..., many of the now stewardess are way over weight. If you don't want to be scrutinized about your appearance, don't go into occupations or jobs that have a very high standard and not much tolerance. And yes, she could lose about 10 pounds...I used to be an instructor at a gym - she could lose 10 (with proper exercise and healthy eating) and look better.”  Here the technical sphere, including the legal norms and case law regarding weight, combines with argument from authority, where Focused2010 quickly uses his/her experience as a gym instructor to make judgments about Cassie and her weight. 

However, this particular type of comment is rare among the total number of comments on this particular story.  Most of the comments do not focus on any legal issues at all, but instead focus on two issues: whether or not Cassie is fat and whether or not Hooters serves good or bad food.  These types of comments emerge from the personal sphere, whereby the posters bring their personal notions of what constitutes fat and/or beautiful or what is good or bad food.  (For the purposes of my interests here, I am focusing only on Cassie’s appearance.)    

For example, several posts argue that she is unattractive in some way.  For example, shirleyvince states: “Cassie looks great, not fat at all, but I think those pictures must be Cassie's mom because she looks 45 not 20. Her neck, eyes and thighs are clearly over 40 or she's been living hard. 132 is very thin for 5'8'' but I would guess her weight at at least 145. The numbers just don't jive with the pictures.”  Similarly, pak31 again notes how the pictures and the words just don’t match up, and don’t add up to a beautiful person: “I am NOT a superficial person by any means, but this girl is not attractive in her face at all. As far as her figure is concerned, I find it hard to believe that she is 5'8" and 132. It's possible but I think more than anything she's out of shape. Her body is not what I would expect to see at a Hooters restaurant. I'd say her body is average.”  Combining his/her personal reading of Cassie’s photos to make the argument Hooters is not the right place for Cassie, longtree-2009 wrote: “for a 20 y/o, she's got some kind of a little belly going on judging from the array of pictures provided. one shows the back of her thighs and they seem to already be like cottage cheese, the beginning of it. 132 is too heavy for 5'8" female. hooters should have every right to hire slim women since it is, after all, hooters. hooters has got to keep up its image and this girl is not it by a long shot.”  Each of these comments, even though written in a public forum, stems from a personal conviction, a personal notion of what is beautiful (and thus the personal sphere).  In the last comment by longtree-2009, the grounds for Hooters being able to employ slim women is based upon the writer’s previous description of what constitutes a beautiful woman, and since Cassie did not live up to his/her standards, Hooters was in their right to fire her.  Thus, even though the public sphere was somewhat present here (Hooters has a right to employ people based upon an image standard), the basis for the argument still first developed from the personal sphere.

On the other side of the debate, the comments again were drawn from personal conviction or experience.  bigreddog222 simply stated: “What's the problem? She is HOT.”  In a similar vein, daniellejudith argued: “i remember when i was 5'6" and 125lbs. i felt so skinny. they are saying that she is too fat at 132 and 5'8"? insane.”  Finally, lizannrand rejects super thinness by stating: “She is far from fat. 132 lbs is not fat at all. I think the problem is because she isn't wafer thin and look like a bone bag walking there's an issue. Whatever happened to curves? UNREAL.”  All of these again stem from one’s personal beliefs about what is beautiful and what is not. 

So, what’s the matter if all these arguments are based in the personal, rather than public, line of argument?  In a public controversy, no one can win when ground or an argument from the personal sphere; after all, it could simply just be someone’s opinion.  Therefore, CBS might be trying to advance public deliberation by asking for direct feedback from the public about the issue.  However, simply discussing Cassie’s body in a public forum (ala the internet, news story, etc.) does not engage in public deliberation.  Although people have a right to their own opinions about whether or not Cassie is beautiful, the question, “Did Hooters have the right to fire her for her weight” should elicit public policy concerns, such as whether or not weight should be a protected category, the role of lawsuits within society, whether or not beauty standards can or should be codified into law/policy, etc. 

Thus, these posts (overall) demonstrate how Cassie’s body no longer functions as a private body but as her body becomes publicly displaced, the arguments blends the private/public spheres, justifying comments on whether or not she “actually” weighs 132 pounds.