Consequently, hosting a lavish banquet or ordering lobster is no longer a sufficient signifier of status; today, a sign of true wealth is the ability to forgo food entirely. Eating essentially betrays a person’s most basic human needs; in an era obsessed with ‘self-optimisation’, not eating suggests that a person is somehow ‘beyond’ needs and has achieved total mastery of their body with a heightened capacity for efficiency and focus.
“There is a history in Judeo-Christian societies – and likely in many other religions, hence the widespread practice of fasting – where demonstrating a lack of need for material things, especially food, and being able to demonstrate self-control and discipline are signs of spiritual transcendence,” Dr Woolhouse says. Famously, Italian saint Catherine of Siena would fast for prolonged periods of time as a means of demonstrating her devotion to God through extreme self-control. “But there’s also a class dimension to this,” Dr Woolhouse continues, “because being able to demonstrate a lack of need for material goods, like food, suggests social transcendence too; it’s symbolic of living a life whereby our material needs aren’t a daily concern.” She adds that “fad diets are very unlikely to take off in societies where there are food shortages or food insecurity.”
It’s still jarring to watch celebrities openly admit to fasting for 23 hours a day or taking 14 different supplement pills in lieu of a balanced breakfast. “It normalises and sanctions practises that in other contexts would be regarded as eating disordered,” Dr Woolhouse says. “When eating practices are packaged as ‘done in the name of health’, they are more socially acceptable and difficult to contest.” She points out that a normal teenage girl restricting her diet in the same way as Johnson would likely be regarded as ill and in need of medical intervention. “What we, as a society, regard as ‘normal’ and ‘abnormal’ eating is contextual and largely rides on how those eating practices are framed.”
It’s obvious but bears reiterating that extreme, fad diet trends are both ineffectual and dangerous. But this trend isn’t really about food or health. It’s about performance. It’s a way for the moneyed classes to signal their wealth and status and posture as above us mere mortals who debase ourselves by eating.
I actually disagree with the notion that our goal is to “balance” our desires. I genuinely think every single moment we have to repress our short-term desires is a systemic failure. From both a society-wide and a general systemic perspective, I don’t think it’s sustainable to rely on willpower as a band-aid for things that are fundamentally social issues. Alcoholism and addiction do generally require short-term ignorance of one’s desires and self-control, but, there has been a decent amount of support for the theory that a lot of those tendencies are caused by social issues and lack in other areas. Or in other words, the desire is (sometimes) entirely genuine- It’s just that indulging it directly isn’t a good idea. This is why I have such significant skepticism of any treatment that requires immense will-power over a long period. Yes, some things do require will-power to accomplish, but the fact it takes so much often indicates a separate issue on top of it. Or, in other words, I am skeptical of overindulgence, but I am far more skeptical of the will as a solution to it.
The idea that diabetes can in any way be “cured” by simply reversing what the general social impression of what causes diabetes (overindulge and overeat), is something I view with immense suspicion. I honestly don’t really care if there’s a lot of “science” behind it or even fasting in general- Plenty of extremely bullshit ideas were considered genuine science for a while and viewed uncritically because of social norms and values. I would consider a lot of what you’re suggesting to be extremely at risk of being in a similar situation.
No, I’m saying that the idea it’s universally helpful is self-help-book bunkum, not the idea it’s helpful AT ALL. It’s not the idea that it’s helpful for some people that I’m skeptical of, but it’s status as something that can just fix a lot of physiological issues. It smacks too much of the bias most doctors have of blaming every issue a fat person experiences on their weight when the majority of the time it has nothing to do with it.
Edit: I want to be very clear, I think it (fasting) has a lot of uses. It wouldn't be a common practice in so many religions if it was pointless. Basically all pushback I give is really only being given because I'm suspicious in general of the tendency to associate health and numerous health practices both with universal applicability and moral value. I'd probably give fasting a go myself, probably once I have time to do it without being distracted during work or study due to it, but I think being overly pessimistic about this stuff about it's likely uses is kind of a good idea in general because it ENSURES that, when we do it, it isn't because of our protestant work ethic based culture, but because it works for us and our own goals.
Edit 2: Removed disrespectful statement