I dont like to be the person to point fingers. Furthermore, I believe that ignorance is bliss and that not everything needs to be said. But as a criminology major there is something I cannot left unsaid any longer.
Somatotypes have a dark history.
You heard me right. Morphic bodytypes have a long, nasty history in eugenics and albeism. Created in the 1940's, William Sheldon (A psychologist), sought to create a way to profile people based on appearances, and within these appearances, pick people out of a lineup who were most likely to be criminals or display criminal tendencies: And here we have our Mesomorph bodytype. But lets not forget our people who were meant, from birth, to be loners with maladaptive personalities (Our ectomorphs) and our naturally fat, lazy, affectionate bodies (Endomorphs).
Yes, I understand that today, these are just used as simple body descriptors. But why use Mesomorph when you could just say Triangular? Endomorph when you could just say Pear Shaped? These three terms have a history that not many people know; People see the 'body type' question and just google examples so they know what to say.
But William Sheldon was a poor excuse of a scientist who based his science on an extremely dark form of research that I wont explain here. He developed the field of 'Constitutional Psychology', a now thoroughly debunked and particularly shameful blotch in the history of psychology. He was so heinous in fact, that his official research papers are kept under lock and key in the Anthropological Archives and cannot be viewed without DIRECT allowance from the curators of the entire archive. His work went in depth on race which, in 1940's and 1950's America, Im sure I don't have to explain here, either.
These 3 terms are yet another lingering reminder of a 'scientist' who needs to be abandoned in obscurity, and I cringe every time I see them, wondering if people know what legacy still lives on their profiles.
Somatotypes have a dark history.
You heard me right. Morphic bodytypes have a long, nasty history in eugenics and albeism. Created in the 1940's, William Sheldon (A psychologist), sought to create a way to profile people based on appearances, and within these appearances, pick people out of a lineup who were most likely to be criminals or display criminal tendencies: And here we have our Mesomorph bodytype. But lets not forget our people who were meant, from birth, to be loners with maladaptive personalities (Our ectomorphs) and our naturally fat, lazy, affectionate bodies (Endomorphs).
Yes, I understand that today, these are just used as simple body descriptors. But why use Mesomorph when you could just say Triangular? Endomorph when you could just say Pear Shaped? These three terms have a history that not many people know; People see the 'body type' question and just google examples so they know what to say.
But William Sheldon was a poor excuse of a scientist who based his science on an extremely dark form of research that I wont explain here. He developed the field of 'Constitutional Psychology', a now thoroughly debunked and particularly shameful blotch in the history of psychology. He was so heinous in fact, that his official research papers are kept under lock and key in the Anthropological Archives and cannot be viewed without DIRECT allowance from the curators of the entire archive. His work went in depth on race which, in 1940's and 1950's America, Im sure I don't have to explain here, either.
These 3 terms are yet another lingering reminder of a 'scientist' who needs to be abandoned in obscurity, and I cringe every time I see them, wondering if people know what legacy still lives on their profiles.
It's definitely understandable to be discomforted seeing those terms in use when you know more than most about their history. I know that plenty of people are understandably still uncomfortable with the term "queer" even though it's a reclaimed term now, and there are those working to phase out "Asperger's Syndrome" since the was named not simply by, but after another terrible scientist and has long been thought of as, basically, a "higher functioning" or "lighter" form of Autism. Simple words can definitely have a big impact.
In my personal opinion, however, in this case, I think it would be acceptable to to let this one be. Not saying it's somehow "wrong" for you to be bothered; more that I don't see any value to be gained from dropping their use (and that could absolutely be that there's more I just don't know about it all, yet).
At the end of the day, while I personally don't feel that a moral crusade to drop the terms would be anywhere near worth the effort it would take to make any kind of progress on that goal, I also don't have any particular attachment to the terms and won't, like, fight to "defend" them or anything. They can be useful in getting a quick, very generalized idea of an aspect of someone's physical appearance, but going the extra step of describing things more fully will definitely paint a better picture. They can be aesthetically useful in certain types of profiles, but kinda seem too "sterile" in others.
In my personal opinion, however, in this case, I think it would be acceptable to to let this one be. Not saying it's somehow "wrong" for you to be bothered; more that I don't see any value to be gained from dropping their use (and that could absolutely be that there's more I just don't know about it all, yet).
My reasoning since I type too much
In the cases I mentioned above, a direct line to issues can easily be drawn. For "queer," the word itself is inherently othering, a synonym of "strange" and "weird" (terms that, themselves, currently carry an awkward mix appeal and stigma); and those who most commonly express issue with the term are of older generations who grew up with it being a slur used against them and that could cause them major problems. I personally favor it, as do many, but I'll commonly try to avoid using it in some contexts where it's more likely to cause distress for those who were tormented with it. For Asperger's, again, the term itself is the name of the awful person who defined it, directly memorializing him; and since then, it has long continued to do its original job of dividing autistic folks into groups of "more functional" and "less functional." Many of those diagnosed with it don't want to let it go, though, especially the shortened form applied to individuals, "aspie," as the term has long given them comfort and helped them to feel like part of a community instead of a cast-out.
Conversely, morphic body types as descriptors have no direct, inherent issue that I'm aware of, and it's only in the context of their apparently little-known origin that any issue is to be had. I'm pretty sure most people aren't familiar with that history; up to now, I, at least, had only ever seen it used to describe a body generalized body shape and that's it. I think this is the first I've even seen the word "somatotypes." Without the history lesson, the terms have generally been disconnected from their origin, offering no direct credit to anything Sheldon did (and with the history lesson, it becomes clear that his work is otherwise without merit, so still no positive credit). Their modern use is only in reference to body shape, nothing about an individual's personality or psychology or such, and what biases we do have about body shapes exist entirely independently of these terms. The terms themselves are also constructed of neutral, descriptive: "morph" is simply "shape," "endo" means "internal" or "on the inside," "meso" is "middle" or "in between," and "ecto" is "outer" or "on the outside." I can make a guess that maybe the prefixes were assigned according to a presumed societal position, since the use of "endo" and "ecto" in relation to shape otherwise seem backwards without a stretch being made (like ectomorph having more "outside" of their body and endomorph having more "inside" of their body), but I think most people aren't interested enough in etymology to know any of that, either. Overall, the terms don't seem to be causing any ongoing harm that could be stopped by ceasing their use.
The terms do still serve a purpose, though. They are fancy-sounding terms (fancier and more official-sounding than fruit comparisons, at least) that can easily be looked up for a shallow, generalized reference. It's much like the the term "caucasian," which also has origins in a debunked theory, but which continues to be a common way of saying "white person of European ancestry" (especially western European) without actually saying that or even just "white."
They're also... actually a bit vague, which should probably be a point against them in at least some ways. For one, there seems to be a discrepancy on whether it refers to the shape of a body or the apparent amount of fat/muscle in the body. Sometimes it seems to be round, rectangular, and inverted triangle (just "triangular" makes me default to the wide part being at the bottom); or convex, straight/parallel, and concave. Other times it seems to be fat, "fit" or muscular, and thin/skinny, any of which could appear to have a more rectangular or concave shape, and round/inverted triangle can both extend at least into mesomorph. With a shape focus, the way a typical female body develops (more narrow at the waist and wider above and below) would skew more of them into ectomorph. With a fat focus (skipping muscle because it gets a lot more complicated trying to include it), endomorph could be apple as easily as pear, and could also be rectangular or, depending on fat distribution, hourglass; any of them could be "pear" shaped with the typical way fat is distributed in women; and so on. So for the sake of clarity, there definitely are benefits to using other descriptors that don't even relate to the history of the morphic terms. That might actually be the better thing to focus on to encourage change.
Conversely, morphic body types as descriptors have no direct, inherent issue that I'm aware of, and it's only in the context of their apparently little-known origin that any issue is to be had. I'm pretty sure most people aren't familiar with that history; up to now, I, at least, had only ever seen it used to describe a body generalized body shape and that's it. I think this is the first I've even seen the word "somatotypes." Without the history lesson, the terms have generally been disconnected from their origin, offering no direct credit to anything Sheldon did (and with the history lesson, it becomes clear that his work is otherwise without merit, so still no positive credit). Their modern use is only in reference to body shape, nothing about an individual's personality or psychology or such, and what biases we do have about body shapes exist entirely independently of these terms. The terms themselves are also constructed of neutral, descriptive: "morph" is simply "shape," "endo" means "internal" or "on the inside," "meso" is "middle" or "in between," and "ecto" is "outer" or "on the outside." I can make a guess that maybe the prefixes were assigned according to a presumed societal position, since the use of "endo" and "ecto" in relation to shape otherwise seem backwards without a stretch being made (like ectomorph having more "outside" of their body and endomorph having more "inside" of their body), but I think most people aren't interested enough in etymology to know any of that, either. Overall, the terms don't seem to be causing any ongoing harm that could be stopped by ceasing their use.
The terms do still serve a purpose, though. They are fancy-sounding terms (fancier and more official-sounding than fruit comparisons, at least) that can easily be looked up for a shallow, generalized reference. It's much like the the term "caucasian," which also has origins in a debunked theory, but which continues to be a common way of saying "white person of European ancestry" (especially western European) without actually saying that or even just "white."
They're also... actually a bit vague, which should probably be a point against them in at least some ways. For one, there seems to be a discrepancy on whether it refers to the shape of a body or the apparent amount of fat/muscle in the body. Sometimes it seems to be round, rectangular, and inverted triangle (just "triangular" makes me default to the wide part being at the bottom); or convex, straight/parallel, and concave. Other times it seems to be fat, "fit" or muscular, and thin/skinny, any of which could appear to have a more rectangular or concave shape, and round/inverted triangle can both extend at least into mesomorph. With a shape focus, the way a typical female body develops (more narrow at the waist and wider above and below) would skew more of them into ectomorph. With a fat focus (skipping muscle because it gets a lot more complicated trying to include it), endomorph could be apple as easily as pear, and could also be rectangular or, depending on fat distribution, hourglass; any of them could be "pear" shaped with the typical way fat is distributed in women; and so on. So for the sake of clarity, there definitely are benefits to using other descriptors that don't even relate to the history of the morphic terms. That might actually be the better thing to focus on to encourage change.
At the end of the day, while I personally don't feel that a moral crusade to drop the terms would be anywhere near worth the effort it would take to make any kind of progress on that goal, I also don't have any particular attachment to the terms and won't, like, fight to "defend" them or anything. They can be useful in getting a quick, very generalized idea of an aspect of someone's physical appearance, but going the extra step of describing things more fully will definitely paint a better picture. They can be aesthetically useful in certain types of profiles, but kinda seem too "sterile" in others.
You are on: Forums » Smalltalk » On the topic of Somatotypes
Moderators: Mina, Keke, Cass, Auberon, Claine, Ilmarinen, Ben, Darth_Angelus