Fecal Matters: Habitus, Embodiments, and Deviance: Martin S. Weinberg, Colin J. Williams

Fecal Matters: Habitus, Embodiments,
and Deviance
MARTIN S. WEINBERG, Indiana University
COLIN J. WILLIAMS, Indiana University–Purdue University
at Indianapolis
This article examines fecal matters—namely, the social concerns that can accompany defecation and flatu-
lence. Researching 172 university students, we show how aspects of the socio-cultural context as “embodied” in
four groups of participants (heterosexual women and men and non-heterosexual women and men) mediate the
operation of the “fecal habitus”—that part of culture that interprets and organizes fecal events (Inglis 2000).
The study finds that the heterosexual women and the non-heterosexual men show the greatest commitment to
the habitus and the heterosexual men the least. It provides some evidence that the non-heterosexual women also
Downloaded from http://socpro.oxfordjournals.org/ by guest on October 23, 2016

show a decreased commitment. Theoretical contributions show how the concept of embodiment can highlight
everyday “social problems prevention work” by paying attention to the role of the different senses, the emotional
components involved in bodily mishaps, gender discrimination and the privileging of male status, and the elabo-
ration of stigma theory.
The social constructionist perspective dominates the sociological approach to social

problems and deviance (for example, see Adler and Adler 2003; Holstein and Miller 2003;
Rubington and Weinberg 2003). In evaluating this work, James A. Holstein and Gale Miller
(2003) appreciate its contribution yet note: “Neglected are the myriad everyday interactional
matters that constitute social problems on a smaller scale” (p. 71). This article adds to the
constructionist approach by considering some common but rarely studied events that rou-
tinely produce everyday social problems—“the occasional improprieties that temporarily mark
certain individuals as somehow non-conforming, awkward or improper” (Karp, Yoels, and
Vann 2004:284). We do this by studying “fecal matters”—namely, the social concerns that
can accompany defecation and flatulence. These bring the body into everyday interaction as
an object of experience (also see Gubrium and Holstein 2003). As such, the body can become
a salient reference for self awareness (Callero 2003). Individuals, thus, will try to bring their
bodies into compliance with social norms to ensure smooth social interaction and to produce
an acceptable self presentation.
Such concerns can be conceptualized by adopting the notion of “embodiment,” which
refers to “the learning or mastery of bodily techniques. . . . [It is] the ensemble of corporeal
practices which produce and give ‘a body’ its place in everyday life. Embodiment is the lived
experience of the sensual or subjective body” (Turner 2000:492). Clearly we are embodied
when we defecate as we bring our body into consciousness and follow socially appropriate
corporeal practices to eliminate fecal waste. The idea of an embodied self was explored in
detail by Erving Goffman (1967) who examined how the socially situated nature of bodily
The authors thank Leah Van Wey, Cher Jamison, and Patricia McManus for help with the data analysis and presen-
tation, and Brian Powell, Elizabeth Armstrong, and the editor and anonymous referees for their helpful suggestions with
regard to the write-up. Direct correspondence to: Martin S. Weinberg, Department of Sociology, Indiana University, 1020
E. Kirkwood Ave., Bloomington, IN 47405. E-mail: [email protected].
Social Problems, Vol. 52, Issue 3, pp. 315–336, ISSN 0037-7791, electronic ISSN 1533-8533.
© 2005 by Society for the Study of Social Problems, Inc. All rights reserved. Please direct all requests for permission to photo-
copy or reproduce article content through the University of California Press’s Rights and Permissions website, at http://www.
ucpress.edu/journals/rights.htm.
316 WEINBERG/WILLIAMS
activity sustained the interaction order; for Goffman this was “a skillful accomplishment for
the human agent” (Williams and Bendelow 1998:56). Thus, as he says, “the individual is
always in jeopardy because of the adventitious linking of events, the vulnerability of his [or
her] body, and the need in social situations to maintain the proprieties” (Goffman 1967:169).
Persons in everyday social interaction then must constantly pay attention to their bodies
through what we can call “social problems prevention work” (compare to Holstein and Miller
2003).
Shortcomings or failures at such work can lead to another of Goffman’s concerns:
embarrassment. Signified by embodied emotional signs such as blushing, fumbling, sweating,
etc., embarrassment occurs when we fail to project an acceptable self before others in the
social situation (Goffman 1967; Gross and Stone 1964; Weinberg 1968). The threat to charac-
ter is especially severe with regard to defecation, as failure to control the disposition of fecal
outputs in an appropriate way can project a self that is incompatible with a person’s identity
as a competent, mature adult (see Cahill et al. 1985). Such failures, furthermore, can be
experienced on a range of minor to major happenings. Events such as unintentionally
“breaking wind” in public violate conventions and are productive of embarrassment. Those

events experienced as more major ones can result in shame—a more serious loss of self-
esteem as one’s moral character is called into question (Miller 1996; Parrott and Harré 1996).
One case in point is the “abject embodiment” felt by cancer patients who lose bowel control,
which threatens “the accomplishment and maintenance of dignified selfhood” (Waskul and
van der Riet 2002:488).
The abject embodiment above refers to permanent loss of bowel control. But even tem-
porary fecal mishaps can be threatening to the self because such situations also involve a
breach of body boundaries that is conducive to another strong emotion: disgust. Fecal prod-
ucts are considered a “universal disgust substance” (Rozin, Haidt, and McCauley 1993:579)
because of their ability to pollute or contaminate. This is not a question of hygiene (e.g., the
relationship of feces to infection), but of culture. There are cultural distinctions as to what
belongs “inside” and “outside” the body. Thus, certain bodily products (e.g., vomit, menstrual
blood, nasal mucous) are considered polluting or contaminating (i.e., disgusting) when they
escape the body envelope. For the individual who fails to correctly maintain the boundary,
this can lead to “disgust being focused in varying degrees on the self or aspects of the self”
(Power and Dalgleish 1997:358). Bryan Turner (2003) explains the threat for society as fol-
lows: “the fluids that flow from inside of bodies to the outside are dangerous and contaminat-
ing because fluids on the outside of our bodies challenge our sense of order and orderliness”
(p. 5; also see Longhurst 2001). Indeed, Goffman (1971) can be seen as arguing that such
successful boundary maintenance is crucial for social order itself, as this order depends on the
corporeal competencies of an embodied social actor always mindful of the self it presents.
And it is how persons try to adhere to such rules with regard to fecal matters that is covered
in the present research.
The above competencies have been called by David Inglis (2000) the “faecal habitus”
(hereafter spelled “fecal habitus”). It is this that Western bourgeois citizens embody as they go
about correctly ridding themselves of fecal matter. Inglis (2000) sees the fecal habitus as com-
posed of two components. The first component refers to a symbolic classificatory schema
which variably evaluates excrement as “dirt” (both morally and hygienically). Certainly,
excrement is assigned a highly emotional negative meaning in the contemporary United
States. The second component of the fecal habitus is a set of excretory practices based on such
symbolic meaning. Three sets of practices exist. First are the ways in which defecation is car-
ried out in socially acceptable ways in terms of time, location, and use of receptacles. Second,
are sensory considerations and practices—those that reflect the degree of emotional repug-
nance that exists for the sounds, smells, and sights of defecation. Third, and finally, are the
verbal practices that regulate the ways that excrement is to be named and referred to (e.g.,
Fecal Matters 317
euphemisms and circumlocutions). In general, defecation practices are not considered a

socially acceptable topic for conversation.
Regarding the first set of practices, the habitus enjoins that excretion should be carried
out according to established times, locales, and receptacles. Most importantly, it should be
done in private (Kira 1967). In terms of the second and third sets, fecal odors and sounds
must also be minimized, and verbal practices must be circumspect. Thus, according to Inglis
(2000), “The imperatives of the bourgeois faecal habitus are privacy, deodourization, and
euphemism”(pp. 53–54). Such a habitus acts as a background against which shortcomings in
actual defecation practices are thrown into relief. As such, it provides a cultural template with
regard to which everyday social problems prevention work is done.
Embodiment of the fecal habitus applies to all persons. Our first task is to show how this
works in everyday life, how persons recognize the habitus and honor its dictates. At the same
time, the fecal habitus exists in conjunction with various forms of embodiment, which gives
us a second task—to examine how the habitus may be modified to reflect such contingent
phenomena. We consider how the embodiment of social identity may play such a role. We
look at two intersecting aspects of identity—gender and sexual identity—and how they affect

corporeal practices. In short, like Hazel Rose Markus, Patricia R. Mullaly, and Shinobu
Kitayama (1997), we see selves as culturally specific, emerging as individuals learn and
engage local cultures. Thus, we shall also ask: Is the fecal habitus differentially experienced
by men and women, heterosexuals and non-heterosexuals? Does having different embodied
identities affect adherence to the fecal habitus? And, if so, does this lead to greater or lesser
emotions of negative self regard? Our reasoning is based on the following.
With regard to gender, in Western societies, emanations from the female body have long
been considered deviant and feared as a source of contamination. Menstruation has been a
particular concern so that much female embodiment stresses practices that control “her
bleeding and oozing body” (Lee and Sasser-Coen 1996:16; also see Fingerson 2001). Women’s
bowel movements, however, may be more stigmatizing than their menstruation. Compared
to books on menstruation there is little published per se on women’s defecation other than to
discuss it in the context of modesty and the idealization of women as pure. Sally R. Munt
(1998) quotes Jonathan Swift’s 1730 poem “The Lady’s Dressing Room,” which satirically
deals with the idea “. . . that women don’t shit” (p. 201) as reflecting this idealized view. The
fear expressed is that women’s fecal odors may destroy male desire—with no mention of
men’s odors destroying female desire (Miller 1997). Thus, we might expect that women’s
embodiment of the fecal habitus will include a heightened concern over controlling evidence
of their bowel movements—that given their physical idealization the social cost will be
greater. We would expect this to be of even greater concern when they are in the company of
men.
The above reflects men’s power in the gender system which under most circumstances
allows for greater freedom of embodiment for men. This is shown in cultural definitions of
masculinity that repudiate all that is associated with women (Savin-Williams 2001). Thus,
bodily grossness may be valued for its opposition to the manners that femininity is thought to
imply. The delight taken in physical behaviors like burping can indicate men’s disdain for
what they perceive as feminine. Some men may adopt this form of embodiment as an expres-
sion of their power over women as they deliberately breach the habitus. Such “strategic
embarrassment” (Karp et al. 2004:294) is also used to socially control other men who are
seen to be straying from masculine ideals (also see Lyman 2001).
Our argument represents an ideal case. Many men and women accept or reject the
models of embodiment offered them or modify them in accordance with other identities—for
example, status systems based on age, race, ethnicity, and—our concern—sexual identity. By
“sexual identity” we mean “the self-concept an individual organizes around . . . [a] predispo-
sition typically labeled (in this culture) ‘heterosexual,’ ‘gay,’ ‘lesbian,’ or ‘bisexual’” (Diamond
2003:352). Because sexual identity intersects with gender, we ask whether differences in
men’s and women’s embodiment are the same among persons who do not define themselves
as traditionally heterosexual (e.g., as gay, lesbian, bisexual). Specifically, do non-heterosexual
women tend to scrutinize their body and bodily processes in the same way as straight
women? Do non-heterosexual men tend to be as blasé about bodily functions as straight men
may be? Do any differences related to sexual identity affect the operation of the fecal habitus?
Recent work suggests that gay and lesbian embodiment is both conditioned by and
resists the dominant culture. For example, Ritch Savin-Williams (2001) found that many gay
men “. . . [are] repelled by . . . [straight men’s] behavior, their standard of dress and cleanli-
ness, and their barbarian nature” (p. 121). Moreover, Marc E. Mishkind and associates (2001)
say that gay subcultural norms place “an elevated importance on all aspects of a man’s physi-
cal self—body build, grooming, dress, [and] handsomeness” (p. 113). It seems that a new
phenomenon, the “queer body”—muscled, buffed, and tanned—has become a widespread
ideal among young gay men (Kiley 1998). According to Travis Kong Shiu-Ki (2004), having
such a “fit” body is part of gay men’s “embodied cultural capital” (p. 9). Many bisexual men
also are involved in gay subcultures to some extent (Weinberg, Williams, and Pryor 1994)
and may be similar to the gay men who reject certain aspects of “hegemonic masculinity”

(Connell 2002:61–62). We would also note the importance of the anus as a receptive sexual
orifice for some men who have sex with men. For them, a self presentation that brackets
fecal matters may be salient. We note, however, that diversity exists among men who have
sex with men. For example, the influence of the metropolitan gay subculture may not reach
all non-heterosexual men (see Brekhus 2003). And there is a diversity of gay subcultures that
reject these subcultural themes of “gay embodiment”—for example, those accepting the
“bear” identity and “drag queens.”
Non-heterosexual women also face images of lesbian embodiment, but these tend to be
unflattering (Creed 1999). One common stereotype depicts the lesbian body as “masculine,”
which can generate suspicion that many women athletes and a variety of masculine-embodied
women are lesbian (Blinde and Taub 1992). Failure to live up to heteronormativity, however,
has not meant that lesbians necessarily avoid concerns about appearing attractive. Rather,
Liahna Gordon (2005) has shown how participation in a lesbian subculture can foster a
broader conception of attractiveness. These norms display resistance to appearance norms of
the dominant culture. Weight, for example, is not as central a concern, nor is breast size or
shape or indicants of disability or motherhood. In fact, these are sometimes redefined to pro-
duce an embodiment that offers alternative beauty ideals. Many bisexual women are involved
in the lesbian subculture and may also adopt some of its themes (Weinberg et al. 1994), espe-
cially those that reject heterosexual embodiment. As in the case of non-heterosexual men,
however, there also are non-heterosexual women who adopt a stereotypical, traditional gen-
der role.
A final consideration for the production of self-regarding emotions is the audience in
whose eyes one’s impression management succeeds or fails. The operation of the fecal habi-
tus thus will be mediated further by the nature of the audience as the anticipation of deviant
attributions may vary according to relational context. For example, in settings such as hospi-
tals and old age homes, staff may be used to the “abject embodiment” of their patients so that
loss of control over urination and defecation is ordinarily an unmarked event (Mitteness
1987; Waskul and van der Riet 2002). Socio-emotional closeness may also affect reactions.
Cleaning up the mess made by an aged and incontinent parent may be done with the same
“suspension of disgust rules” (Miller 1997:132) as in attending to a newborn’s messy diaper.
Similarly, living in communal quarters that do not allow for privacy may provide a backdrop
for the relaxation of the fecal habitus.
Though breaches of the fecal habitus can be downplayed through normalization and
neutralization as noted above, such breaches are celebrated in some instances. These occur
among young persons in same sex settings—for example, pissing contests, lighting farts, and
farting contests among young men. Attention to a breach of body boundaries often also is
Fecal Matters 319
sought to embarrass the offender and provide amusement to others. Or it can signify solidarity
based on flouting authority or middle-class adult norms of propriety.
We examine the above topics and questions with our research. First, we describe the
nature of the study and those who participated in it. Then, we discuss the embodied concerns
study participants had with regard to fecal matters and their fears of being labeled deviant.
We examine embarrassing and shameful experiences that ensued from breaches of the fecal
habitus and the projection of incompatible selves. We consider the role of the various senses
(sound, smell, and sight), the gender of the audience, and the role of the social relationship in
providing a context for one’s concerns. We look at social problems prevention work—the
strategies used to avoid the awkward interactions that can result from being designated devi-
ant in this way. And we look at how the intersection of one’s gender and sexual identity may
enter into these matters.
The Study

Participants in the study are young adults in college who are at the stage of social life
where they are particularly concerned with bodily issues. (A question we included in a poll of
a representative sample of Indiana state residents showed that a concern with fecal matters
was found more in such younger age groups.) Moreover, many of them live in public settings
(e.g., dormitories, sororities) where toilet practices do not go unnoticed and are more or less
accepted topics of conversation and occasions for humor. These factors may make students
more reflexively aware of the fecal habitus. Whereas these living arrangements may provide
a plus for a study that examines the operation of the habitus, it may compromise its repre-
sentative character given that many persons may be less reflective of these matters.
The students were recruited from sociology courses containing 50 or more students at a
large Midwestern state university. We sought a study group of young adults that contained
diversity in gender and sexual identity. Social class could be an issue here, given the elite
based nature of the fecal habitus (see Elias 1978). Inglis (2000), however, notes that by the
turn of the twentieth century, “the bourgeoisie was joined in the conditions of . . . [the fecal]
habitus by the proletariat, thus transforming it from a specifically bourgeois habitus to the
modern fecal habitus, shared by all social strata” (p. 52). To help in the recruitment of gay,
lesbian, and bisexual identified participants, we also described the research at group meetings
of such students and sent out an announcement of the study using the e-mail distribution
lists for gay, lesbian, and bisexual students. The fact that most of the non-heterosexual stu-
dents came from the same campus group also suggested that these bisexuals were in contact
with lesbian/gay culture. Students were offered a choice of either a $10 phone card or a $10
Starbucks gift certificate for their participation in the study.
The one-hour interviews for the study were conducted by six undergraduate students
(three women and three men). Interviewees were matched with participants of the same
gender who were also given the opportunity to choose a heterosexual or non-heterosexual
person to serve as their interviewer. Throughout the training, pretesting, and data collection
stages, all the interviews were carefully reviewed and any problems discussed with the inter-
viewers. When we checked back with study participants after each interview was completed,
all evaluated their interviewer as competent and the experience as enjoyable.
The study group comprises 172 participants. Sixty-nine classified themselves as hetero-
sexual women, 32 as non-heterosexual women (14 identifying as lesbian and 18 as bisexual),
52 as heterosexual men, and 19 as non-heterosexual men (16 identifying as gay and 3 as bi-
sexual). Those who identified as bisexual, gay, or lesbian were combined as “non-heterosexual”
because of their relatively small numbers and because there were no significant differences
between them on their answers to the questions we asked. In terms of ethnicity, 70 percent
described themselves as white, 6 percent Latino/Hispanic, 15 percent African American, and
10 percent in another way. Ages ranged from 18 to 34 with two-thirds being 18 to 22 years
old. The mean age was 21.3. Finally, using education of father and mother as a crude indica-
tor of social class background, over half of the mothers and fathers had a college degree. Al-
though there are two significant differences in the above social characteristics among the
gender-sexual identity groups (i.e., a greater proportion of African Americans among the het-
erosexual women and a slightly older average age for the non-heterosexual men), neither of
these characteristics proved to be significantly related to the answers given to our questions.
The questions asked investigated their concerns and experiences surrounding fecal mat-
ters. One set of questions referred to the sound involved in having a bowel movement and
asked how uncomfortable the study participants would feel if this sound was overheard by
different people (e.g., a new date, a spouse/partner, a good friend, a work associate, a
stranger). Where appropriate, we varied the individuals posited in each relationship by gen-
der (e.g., a woman who was a good friend, a man who was a good friend). Later, if the study
participant noted differences in discomfort by gender and/or relationship, they were asked to
describe what was involved in creating such a difference. We investigated their concern with
the smell and sight of defecation and how their concerns were related to the particular sense

involved. Additional questions referred to experiences they might have had in which the
fecal habitus was cast into relief: namely, when their feces would not flush down the toilet,
being flatulent in the presence of others, and having to use a public restroom to defecate.
Inquiries were also made about the specific strategies employed with regard to the various
senses to avoid breaching the fecal habitus.
We read the full text of all the interviews and developed coding categories that we
employed to keep track of the types of answers we received. We looked for differences in the
nature of participants’ concerns and compared distributions among categories of answers
among the four gender-sexual identity groups. We sought modifications in the anticipated
social consequences of breaches of the fecal habitus according to the audience’s gender and
social relationship. We used chi-square tests to conclude whether the differences among
groups’ answers to the open-ended questions were likely due to chance.
With the closed-ended data, where appropriate, an analysis of variance and Tamhane T2
tests were run to test for differences among the groups. Because parental education and race/
ethnicity did not relate significantly to the answers to the study questions, they were not
incorporated into these runs. Anything reported in the article as a difference among the
gender-sexual identity groups reflects a variation that could be attributed to chance with
a probability of .05 or less.
Body Betrayal and Proximity/Distance
We begin by describing two common ways in which fecal matters are experienced and
how they create the anticipation of embarrassment, shame, and disgust. One is “body
betrayal”; the other is “proximity/distance.” Body betrayal (Featherstone and Hepworth 1991)
is part of a more general characteristic of embodiment. Body boundaries are highlighted by
efforts to maintain the integrity of inside/outside borders against the pressures of fluids, gasses,
and the like. Failing to do this can result in embarrassment when the projection of oneself as
a mature and poised adult is called into question. Thus, the experience of involuntary flatu-
lence is described by one heterosexual man as follows:
It’s not so much the action itself, as it is the reaction that passing gas gets from people. I guess the
most embarrassing thing about it is the loss of control in holding your gas. It just seems like in social
situations . . . that you’d be able to hold your gas [our emphasis].
Body betrayal also casts into relief the social expectation that these boundaries will
be controlled. Thus, people feel unease over “upset stomachs” and other gastro-intestinal
Fecal Matters 321
ailments. They are aware of their bodies as both being a container and being contained
(see Falk 1994; Johnson 1987) and from which substances can demand escape. Experi-
encing the body this way, although a private matter, nonetheless must be articulated with
the public fecal habitus. One of life’s most embarrassing moments can be “having to go”
in a situation either where toilet facilities are unavailable or in which one feels the
facilities can not be reached in time. Digestive trauma is one of the things that compro-
mises the body container and throws into relief the needs of the body. One heterosexual
man related his attempt to bring the physical and the social into alignment under these
conditions:
My [digestive] system has a problem with Italian food, and for my sister’s last birthday we went to
Olive Garden. I went walking in the mall afterwards, and I had to run to the toilet and I almost did
not make it. I actually sprayed a little poop just as I sat down. My family knew I was trying to run,
but I kept my cheeks clenched to avoid having an accident.
Clenching the sphincter muscles was the way he tried to control the body container. To
feel literally driven by the body in an attempt to appropriately meet its dictates is also

recounted in the following heterosexual woman’s story:
I suddenly had to go. I was really sick so I just started driving around and found a fast food restau-
rant, and I didn’t want to go in there because they might know that I didn’t buy anything—like a
Wal-Mart would be better. So I’m driving around and I find an Osco [drugstore], and I run to the
back and they have a sign up that says no public restrooms. So I just drive around, and I’m in pain,
and it’s raining really hard, and I’m totally lost, and finally I figure out on the map where I am and
how to get back to campus; and on the way I passed the same Wendy’s, and I run in and poop
and run out. By the time I got to pick up my boyfriend, I was so late he had already taken the bus. I
was crying and had to explain to him what had happened, which was embarrassing. But he thought
it was funny, mostly that I was crying.
A second way in which the embodiment of the fecal habitus can be experienced is
through the failure to clearly distance oneself from one’s fecal outputs. Routinely this is done
through use of the flush toilet, the mechanical manifestation of the habitus. This does not
always occur efficiently, resulting in a disconcerting proximity to one’s fecal outputs. This can
produce feelings of disgust, defined by Paul Rozin, Jonathan Haidt, and Clark R. McCauley
(1993) as “a reaction to unwanted intimacy” (p. 576), especially to waste products of the
body. Failure to clearly separate oneself from one’s fecal outputs can occur in the following
cases: the fecal bolus will not flush away or flushing will not remove all fecal debris—in New
Zealand called “floaters” and “stripes” respectively (Longhurst 2001); a fecal smell remains for
others to experience; fecal matter adheres to the body or ends up in one’s clothing; fecal
efforts can be overheard; flatulence can be heard and/or smelled. One heterosexual man
reported the apprehension such a situation caused him:
[Embarrassing?] Leaving a skid mark in someone else’s bowl and not being able to do anything
about it. Like a piece of shit that is stuck to the inside of the bowl that the flushing doesn’t get rid of.
It was out of my control . . . They know they didn’t leave it and they could narrow it down to who
it might be.
Another described the following experience as potentially shameful even though the
audience was members of his family:
I was at my aunt’s house. This sucks. I took the most horrible shit, and the toilet wouldn’t flush, and
I tried several times to flush it, and pushed so hard that I broke the handle. My aunt, she didn’t find
out it was me, but she saw the shit and the broken handle. Because I was there, I was still a suspect,
still scared of being called out in front of my entire family.
With regard to the experience of proximity, the closer the distance between the person
and his or her fecal output, the greater the blow to self presentation, and the greater the
stigma. One non-heterosexual man recounted:
I thought I was going to fart while I was working [he does large landscaping projects] and when I
did, shit started coming out. When it came out, it just kept coming so I ran into the cornfield, pulled
my pants down and finished in my pants. I had to take them off. I left them in the field and made a
pair of shorts with my shirt. And besides getting made fun of by my co-workers, I just finished my
day. Well, it was only two hours . . . To this day, they call me “diaper boy.”
It is worth mentioning that it is the sense of sight that is involved in these examples.
Although an obvious medium for gauging distance between a person and their fecal prod-
ucts, other senses can be involved too, notably smell. Producing a fecal smell through flatu-
lence or leaving one behind after defecating can also bring others into contact too close to
one’s fecal output. A non-heterosexual woman recalled not being able to adequately distance
herself:
Just having to go at work one time. It smelled afterwards, and we didn’t have any air freshener.
They made fun of me for, like, two hours afterwards. It was, like, pretty embarrassing at 15. You
know, I worked with them and had to go to school with them the next day.
These experiences of “body betrayal” and “proximity/distance” reflect the embodiment

of the fecal habitus brought to one’s attention when things go awry. All these recollections
show persons are aware that they should control their fecal efforts and dispose of their fecal
products in a prescribed way. Failure to do so, or apprehension about the same, brings into
consciousness a self incompatible with the one the person wishes to project; thus, the antici-
pation or experience of embarrassment, shame, and disgust.
We next turn to a consideration of which sense is assaulted (vision, smell, or hearing)
and the anticipations of deviant attributions by the study participants.
Sights and Smells

Modern plumbing and the imperative of “privacy” from the fecal habitus means that
although we may hear and smell bowel movements, we seldom leave evidence that others
can see. Seeing feces is considered particularly disgusting. For example, on a nine item Dis-
gust Scale designed by Haidt, McCauley, and Rozin, the highest ranking item was “You see a
bowel movement left unflushed in a public toilet” (Rozin et al. 1993:585). Most study partic-
ipants thought it would be worse to have someone see their feces than to smell or hear their
bowel movement as it was the most direct contradiction to their self presentation. One het-
erosexual man described this as follows:
It is more personal. They actually see the results. When they can’t get any closer to knowing what
you have done, you are exposed. It is defiling their vision of you; there is a certain purity that is
involved with people and them seeing such a personal act—that can change or defile you in their
minds. That’s how deep it is.
Having one’s feces seen is a situation that, in addition to creating embarrassment, can
produce shame, in that many participants felt such an occurrence had implications for assess-
ing their character. One heterosexual man expressed this as follows:
If someone just hears or smells you, it is still an abstract concept of you defecating. But once they
see it, the image is imprinted in their minds.
This seems to be because such deviance can be directly attributed to a person—a concrete
reminder that they have breached the fecal habitus and have done so in a way that produces
a high degree of disgust. A non-heterosexual man said:
The visual impact is more powerful than the audible impact. When you’ve seen something, you
have a visual memory and that’s harder to deal with than the sound.
It is an unsought intimacy. As put by a heterosexual woman:

Fecal Matters 323
Out of sight, out of mind. It’s a personal thing for you to hear or smell someone going to the bath-
room. It’s not affecting you, but to see it face to face, it’s a very different thing. You are entering
someone’s personal zone.
The participants saw the sight of their excrement as more destructive of self than were
fecal sounds and odors. The seemingly universal nature of these reactions probably accounts
for the fact that we found no related differences between the four gender-sexual identity
groups. This was not because such experiences and anxieties were rare. Seventy percent of
the participants said they had experienced a situation where their stools would not flush
away. These experiences produced a great deal of concern over the discovery that they were
the source of the excreta.
The most common strategies to remedy such a situation were reported (with about equal
mention) to be continuing to flush (or putting extra water in the toilet), using a toilet plunger
(if available) or some other object as a tool, or such practices as blaming others or fleeing the
scene. These situations were reported to be stressful, as efforts at distancing were not always
immediately successful. A non-heterosexual woman reported:

I continued flushing until it [the stool] would move. If it didn’t I’d have to put a bunch of toilet
paper in there to hide the little thing. I’m not about to just leave it there for the next person. My
goodness! I’d seriously flush about six times to make sure it was gone.
Putting space between the self and the fecal product was evident in the case of this heterosex-
ual woman:
I pretended they [the feces] weren’t mine. I lied and said they were someone else’s.
And a non-heterosexual man described fleeing the scene of a fecal mess with an even greater
sense of urgency:
I was in the airport . . . and I couldn’t do anything, so I just washed my hands and left . . . [My boy-
friend] was waiting outside and I said, “We just need to leave.” One of the airport attendants was
walking into the bathroom at the time.
The above reactions flow from the anxiety felt from being unable to easily distance one’s
bodily products from the gaze of others. Such strategies are aimed at eliminating their associ-
ation with what the fecal habitus evaluates as polluting: human excrement.
The fecal habitus also strongly enjoins us to suppress our fecal odors. We found discom-
fort over breaching this rule to be less than for having one’s feces seen, but more than for
having one’s fecal efforts overheard. Thus, while almost half of the participants reported
anticipating the same level of discomfort over others smelling their bowel movements as they
did over being overheard having them, twice as many of the remaining participants thought
that it would be worse to have someone smell their fecal outputs. Again, the almost universal
disgust associated with the smell of fecal odors led to no differences in this regard according
to gender-sexual identity group.
Most of study participants anticipated that other persons would feel disgust over the
smell of their bowel movement. The greater negative anticipation regarding smell than sound
by many of the participants was attributed to the fact that smell can produce nausea, a corre-
late of disgust. And no one wanted to think of themselves as causing another person to feel
sick. One heterosexual woman described this anticipated effect on an audience:
[Smell] is more intense and more disgusting. It can be more embarrassing depending on how it
smells. The worse it stinks, the nastier they think I am.
Another factor entering into how participants felt their self would be affected was that
allowing fecal smells to escape called into question their self control. A heterosexual
woman commented:
[They think] that it stinks . . . like I made the area smell bad . . . like it’s my fault.
Both the failure to contain fecal smells and the inability to distance oneself from one’s fecal
outputs are shown in the shame recalled by one heterosexual man:
In a public restroom . . . I was leaving, and the other person was walking in and there was a strong
smell. As I left, I made eye contact with the opposing person, and there was an awkward feeling,
knowing that they will be put in a situation of discomfort because of my bowel movement. The per-
son walking in had a look of disgust and I had a look of remorse . . . knowing that I was responsible.
I could tell that they acknowledged the smell and were not pleased.
Following the imperative of “deodorization,” the most frequently mentioned strategy

for handling fecal smells in enclosed spaces like bathrooms was to freshen the air through
the use of commercial products such as air fresheners or fragrance candles. This was fol-
lowed in frequency by reports of the use of extractor fans, and, next, by continuing to
flush. Lighting a match to emit sulfur and overpower the fecal smell was also mentioned as
a strategy. No significant variation appeared among the gender-sexual identity groups.

Sounds
We did the most systematic investigation of sound. As we have described, the smell of
one’s bowel movement was often considered more offensive than overhearing one defe-
cate, and the sight of their feces was considered the most disgusting and stigmatizing. In
classroom discussion about the topic, however, the most salient concern verbalized by stu-
dents was the fear of other students overhearing them defecate if they used on-campus toilets.
They were less concerned with their feces being seen, as this was a rare happenstance. On
the other hand, being overheard was something that could easily occur. Humorous accounts
suggested that though both sounds and smells of defecation may be equally pervasive, the
former was considered more immediate and less easily distanced from.
The habitus rule of privacy means that people should take care in not allowing another
person to hear them defecate. The force of the norm against fecal sounds can be under-
stood through the answers to a question that asked, “In general, what do you think goes
through other people’s minds who hear you having a bowel movement?” Overall, the
thought most frequently offered was that other people would find it disgusting. A hetero-
sexual woman articulated how disgust relates to a violation of privacy:
They’re grossed out . . . It’s not something you put out there; you do it in private. That’s kind of the
way I was raised; it’s expected by the culture.
As we have seen, such a response of disgust is an anticipated reaction to an unwanted

intimacy occasioned by an unruly body. However, even though the anticipation of disgust is
common, we should not ignore that it may be accompanied by other expectations. Thus,
some thought having their bowel movement overheard could evoke a humorous response,
especially when failure to control the body toppled the presentation of self as a poised adult.
A non-heterosexual man referred directly to such a loss of poise:
I guess [people could react to such a sound with] just some sort of laughter, because it [pooping] is
universal. I think implicitly that it shows some sort of weakness. I guess it’s like when you see some-
one fall. At the same time you see it as something you’ve done, you also see that they’re in a vul-
nerable position. It’s sort of humorous.
Such anticipations may be widespread, but because we have argued that the fecal habi-
tus is mediated by socio-cultural factors there may be variations in what is anticipated.
Thus, whether disgust or humor was the more anticipated reaction was said by some to
relate to the gender of the person overhearing. A heterosexual man said:
Fecal Matters 325
For guys it’s kind of like a joke, like “dude, that’s nasty.” Women would probably think it was gross.
It’s a social norm that women should find that disgusting, or at least should never outwardly say
that they accept it or that it is not gross.
A heterosexual woman concurred:

I know guys think it’s funny and amusing; girls probably think it’s gross. They [guys] always do that
bathroom humor.
Sexual identity also mediates such expectations. Thus, we found about half of the het-
erosexual women and the non-heterosexual men anticipating that the hearer would feel
disgusted as compared to over a quarter of the heterosexual men and non-heterosexual
women (Table 1). A non-heterosexual man attributed his concerns to the influence of his
more effeminate friends (“divas”):
Only around people that I’m regularly naked with would I be comfortable with them knowing what
I was doing in the bathroom. I’m on the self-prescribed “pretty pill”—where you don’t fart, sweat,
burp, or use the bathroom. [“Pretty pill”?] That’s just a social construction between some friends

and I. I learned it from my diva friends.
Non-heterosexual men who adopt such a stance not only distance themselves from their
own body products, but also from the attitude of heterosexual men.
With regard to humor, a different pattern appears. Both heterosexual and non-hetero-
sexual men were at least twice as likely as either group of women to think that others
would find their fecal sounds humorous, which was the next most common expectation.
The anticipation of humor when fecal sounds breach body boundaries, thus, seems more
Table 1 • Differences among the Gender-Sexual Identity Groups over Fecal Matters a
Heterosexual Non-Heterosexual Heterosexual Non-Heterosexual

Women Women Men Men
Group (n 5 69) (n 5 32) (n 5 52) (n 5 19)
Anticipations regarding sound

Hearer feels disgust 50.7% 31.3% 28.8% 47.4%
Hearer thinks funny/humorous 13.0 6.3 26.9 26.3
Affects relationship 21.7 6.3 3.8 0.0
Gender of hearer matters 61.9 33.3 68.0 42.1
More discomfort with men 52.2 25.0 1.9 21.1
More discomfort with women 4.3 6.3 63.5 21.1
Reasons for greater discomfort
with other gender
Loss of attractiveness/not
meeting gender ideal 55.1 37.5 26.9 57.9
Ill mannered 7.2 3.1 23.1 0.0
Unconcerned about others
“Not uncomfortable” defecating
in a public restroom 23.2 31.3 50.0 26.3
“Often” engages in intentional
flatulence 7.2 12.5 23.1 5.3
Strategies
Waits until others leave 66.7 37.5 34.6 73.7
Flushes repeatedly 29.0 12.5 0.0 5.6
a
Using chi-square analyses, all comparisons between the four groups reach the .05 level of significance.
closely linked to gender than to sexual identity. In contrast, as shown, the anticipation of
disgust reflects the intersection of gender and sexual identity. On the one hand, the non-
heterosexual women were less likely to anticipate disgust than the heterosexual women;
on the other hand, the non-heterosexual men were more likely to anticipate disgust than
the heterosexual men.
In addition to the embodied nature of gender and sexual identity mediating the effects
of the fecal habitus, the anticipation of embarrassment also is affected by thinking of how
our gaffs and faux pas may be constructed by various audiences (see Weinberg 1968).
Referring to this, one non-heterosexual woman stratified her male audiences by sexual
identity:
If it’s a straight guy, there’s always that tension—some kind of male-female tension. With gay guy
friends, I am comfortable.
To systematically study the audience feature of embarrassment we looked at various

types of social relationships and how the degree of anticipated discomfort over fecal efforts
being overheard might vary (Table 2). Generally, the greatest concern over being overheard

was with the following audiences: people they were sexually attracted to but hadn’t yet
dated (the audience that presented participants with the greatest concern), followed by
someone they just started dating, and, then, someone they knew well (but who was not
a good friend) like a work associate. Less concern was expressed in being overheard by a
stranger, even less by a person they were in a significant relationship with, then by a good
friend, and lastly (of least concern) a person they were married to (or, if non-heterosexual,
were in a civil union with). Lesser levels of concern included two contrasting groups—strang-
ers and long-term intimates—which suggests an interesting association between fecal con-
cerns and audiences. Both groups pose little threat to one’s self presentation: the former
because the event will invoke only a fleeting identity, the latter because such mishaps do not
overwhelm a more permanent presence.
The importance of providing or maintaining a “good impression” was variably expressed
among the different groups. Thus, we found it was a salient concern among the heterosexual
women. One such woman said:
I think it is the need to impress [that leads to such concerns] . . . It’s more of an impression that you
leave [with other persons]. I don’t want that to be the most memorable thing that they know about me.
Table 2 • Discomfort over Bowel Movement being Overheard, as Related to Type of

Social Relationshipa
Social Relationship Mean Standard Deviation
Attracted to person (but not dated yet) 2.19 .93

A new date 1.98 .99
Woman—known well 1.48 1.07
Man—known well 1.42 1.01
Man—a stranger .99 1.07
Woman—a stranger .95 1.03
A significant relationship .79 .94
Woman—a good friend .67 .90
Man—a good friend .67 .95
A spouse or partner .41 .69
a
The metric is 0 (Not uncomfortable) to 3 (Very uncomfortable) if person overheard them defecating; average is
for the total study group.
Fecal Matters 327
Heterosexual women were the most likely to anticipate that such an event could affect a
relationship (Table 1). This concern over incompatible images of themselves reflects the par-
ticular image that heterosexual women have been measured against, one that emphasizes
purity, restraint, and “femininity.” And this incompatibility was experienced as especially
salient when the audience was men. Further, in response to the question asking about the
gender of the hearer, over a quarter more of the heterosexuals (both the women and the men)
said the gender of the person would make a difference. In addition, the greater discomfort
was with the “other gender” among all of the groups except the non-heterosexual men who
were evenly divided into feeling more discomfort with men or women (Table 1). When we
analyzed why this was the case, men and women from the different groups often gave different
answers. The heterosexual women’s explanations were more likely to refer to a loss of attrac-
tiveness reflecting a deviation from gender ideals (Table 1). One heterosexual woman said,
With males, you feel they have this image of women that they just aren’t like that. You know the
“women don’t sweat, they glow” thing.
In the quotations that follow, gender norms were addressed by one heterosexual woman,

and the effect on sexual attractiveness by another. As one said,
If there’s an opportunity for him to hear, it’s not ladylike at all. It’s unappealing for a man to hear a
strange woman poop. It’s an ascribed thing; it’s a social norm.
The other stated,

Maybe it’s that sexual image about what it is to be a woman. That women are supposed to be non-
poopers. One time one of my guy friends was like, “girls don’t poop,” and I was like, “I got news for
you.” I guess it would go back to the whole [idea of] women having to be the attractive one. Like,
women wear the make-up, wear the dresses, and are the sex objects.
Some of the heterosexual men validated these women’s concerns. One said:
Women in my mind are beautiful, perfect creatures that are the object of desire . . . I don’t want the
image of them tainted in my mind.
Heterosexual men were more likely than the other groups to frame concerns about
themselves in terms of “bad manners” in the presence of the other gender (Table 1). As one
heterosexual man put it:
[It’s] compromising . . . I’m a guy and I’m a pig, and a lot of girls don’t like that, so I try to control
myself a bit. Compromising what I would normally do, like keep the door open when I’m pooping.
We have argued that heterosexual women’s self consciousness over fecal matters reflects
the salience of “attractiveness norms.” Non-heterosexual men, like the heterosexual women,
were also more concerned about a loss of attractiveness (Table 1). Their lack of ease stemmed
from a similar emphasis on the body beautiful, but in this case, in the eyes of other non-
heterosexual men. Additionally, non-heterosexual men of the type involved in this study
seem less likely to be integrated into networks of hegemonic masculinity (Connell 2002a)
and thus heterosexual men are less likely to be their reference group.
It is also interesting that men of any sex identity who avoid this form of masculine
expression may be labeled deviant because they are “not acting like men.” As described by a
heterosexual woman:
We had a guy who lived with us two years ago, and he went to great lengths for people not to hear
. . . him. He would run the water so we couldn’t hear him. He went to extreme lengths. But since
we’d hear the water running, we knew what he was doing. We were like: “He’s worse than a girl.”
The heterosexual men and the non-heterosexual women were less concerned with hiding
that they were defecating beings. On average, they worried less about the loss of attractiveness.
It appears that the greater embodiment concerns of heterosexual women and non-heterosexual
men reflect a dependence on men for their personal validation as sexually attractive.
The lesser concern of heterosexual men over the embodiment of attractiveness is rein-
forced by the complicit masculinity (Connell 2002b) that local communities of heterosexual
men can sustain. Their greater indifference to body boundaries is most clearly seen when the
audience is other men. Thus, the heterosexual men stand out in having less concern over
their fecal sounds than do any of the other groups, especially with regard to good male
friends, men they know well, and male strangers (Table 3). Findings are not parallel for either
women’s group (i.e., women do not show a greater comfort than men do when women are
the audience—women who are good friends, whom they know well, or who are strangers).
Furthermore, it is not surprising that the heterosexual men also showed the least concern
about having a bowel movement in a public restroom and were more likely to report being
intentionally flatulent in the presence of other people (Table 1). As one heterosexual man
replied when asked what he thought other people would feel if they smelled his fecal gas:
Guys would say it’s raunchy and then say “Nice one,” because if it’s strong it’s more manly. You
know, because women would not try to clear a room with a fart.

Thus, although many often felt constrained by the fecal habitus, young heterosexual men
were the most likely to show disdain for its dictates. This finding again shows how the power
of heterosexual men is exemplified through their embodiment—they feel the freedom to
ignore the fecal habitus more so than do persons in the other groups.
Finally, the participants’ answers cite the mediating influence of the social relationship
and its duration. The fecal habitus is generally reported to be of greatest salience when
attracted to the person or when beginning a relationship. When asked if being sexually
attracted to the person who hears them defecate would exacerbate their discomfort, nearly
all said it would. They also noted, however, how the threshold for embarrassment can be
altered over the course of a relationship. In the words of a non-heterosexual man:
There is a tendency to be watchful and careful about everything that you do—especially at the
beginning of a relationship . . . At the beginning of a relationship with an attractive person, I am
uncomfortable. But after I know them, I don’t care.
Table 3 • Discomfort over Bowel Movement being Overheard, as Mediated by Gender and
Sexual Identitya
Group
Heterosexual Non-Heterosexual Heterosexual Non-Heterosexual

Women Women Men Men
Social Relationship (n 5 69) (n 5 32) (n 5 52) (n 5 19)
Attracted to person 2.41 1.97 2.05 2.21

A new date 2.16 1.78 1.89 1.90
Woman—known well 1.42 1.38 1.52 1.74
Man—known well 1.84b 1.53b .77 1.53
Man—a stranger 1.28b .97 .48 1.42b
Woman—a stranger .94 .88 .83 1.47
A significant relationship .88 .50 .83 .79
Woman—a good friend .49 .66 .77 1.11
Man—a good friend .84c .81c .21 1.11c
A spouse or partner .46 .31 .35 .53
a
The metric is 0 (Not uncomfortable) to 3 (Very uncomfortable) if person overheard them defecating.
b
Statistically significant from the heterosexual men at the .001 level (Tamhane T2 test).
c
Statistically significant from the heterosexual men at the .05 level (Tamhane T2 test).
Fecal Matters 329
The longer the relationship, the more it was believed to routinize the experience of the
other’s bodily functions. Embarrassment and shame were least likely to be reported in rela-
tionships that had become routinized or where a single event (like a fecal mishap) would
probably not outweigh other aspects of a primary relationship. In the beginnings of a rela-
tionship, however, unruly bodies were seen to draw the most unwelcome attention and make
incompatible selves the most evident.
We again asked participants how they complied with the fecal habitus so as to protect
their body boundaries. To the question, “What things do you do, or what strategies do you
engage in to avoid people from hearing you [defecate],” the strategy they mentioned most
often was to produce distance by waiting until there was no audience to overhear them. A
non-heterosexual woman said:
I go to the bathroom when no one’s there. I go in another room if I have to fart.
Of the strategies reported, waiting until no one was in a public restroom was followed in fre-
quency by running the water [in the sink or bathtub] of a private bathroom to mask the
sound. Flushing the toilet and/or waiting until other people in the public lavatory flushed

were mentioned with similar frequency as was running the water in a private bathroom. As a
heterosexual woman said:
In a public restroom I might try to choose one that I’m fairly certain will be empty, but if I’m feeling
particularly paranoid I might wait until someone flushes.
The strength of the norms of the habitus is also reflected in accounts of how embodiment
can be manipulated. For example, some persons controlled their sphincter muscles to let out
gas or excrement slowly, thus decreasing the sound of their bowel movement. One hetero-
sexual man stated:
If it is going to be loud, I would stop and go, meaning let it out in intervals so it would not be a big
kerplunk sound.
Other techniques to prevent people from hearing included having a bowel movement early
in the morning or late at night, going upstairs if people are downstairs (or vice versa), doing it
as fast as you can, pulling out the toilet paper roll to make a cover-up noise, turning the fan
on, and not using public restrooms at all.
Compliance with this aspect of the habitus was also shown to be mediated by the inter-
section of gender and sexual identity. The most common strategy of waiting until others were
not around was mentioned by at least two-thirds of the heterosexual women and the non-
heterosexual men. They mentioned this about twice as often as the heterosexual men and
the non-heterosexual women (Table 1). The strategy of using toilet flushing to mask the
sound was most likely to be practiced by the heterosexual women (Table 1). These results are
consistent with the findings reported earlier that show elevated concerns over fecal events
among heterosexual women and non-heterosexual men.
Summary and Caveats
This article has explored what has been called the “fecal habitus” (Inglis 2000), that
aspect of culture that organizes the body in reference to fecal outputs. We investigated the
everyday concerns and social problems prevention work of a group of university students as
they go about actualizing the fecal habitus. Everyday social order is based on appropriate
body conduct, and our analysis reveals how such order is sustained through the threats posed
to one’s identity as a competent adult. We also looked at how these concerns and strategies
were shaped by socio-cultural factors, especially as embodied in four different gender-sexual
identity groups. Further, we hoped to show how, using the idea of embodiment, a sociology
of everyday social problems could be enriched by reconciling the materiality and the social
construction of bodies.
To study the operation of the fecal habitus we began by examining two important fea-
tures of bodily experience: how corporality is contained and how people distance themselves
from bodily outputs. We then asked questions that posed a breach in the taken-for-granted
status of the habitus as the body comes into focus when fuelled by fears of body betrayal and
proximity to fecal matters. We examined how the body is activated, how one takes into
account different senses, how the effort to align the body and the habitus plays out before
particular audiences, and how the emotions of embarrassment, shame, and disgust make them-
selves felt.
We proposed that, given the dominant cultural heritage surrounding women’s bodies,
heterosexual women would be more concerned about social reactions than other groups
with regard to fecal events. The data from replies to both open-ended and closed-ended ques-
tions support this expectation. The heterosexual women were likely to anticipate more devi-
ant labeling, more disgust from other people, and more negative effects on relationships and
to report more worry about the loss of attractiveness. They were also more likely to report

that they would not use a public toilet when others were in the facility. The non-heterosexual
men were similar to the heterosexual women in anticipating more disgust, more of a loss of
attractiveness, and more unease about using public toilets to defecate than were the other
groups.
In contrast, although many heterosexual men showed concerns about their breaches of
the fecal habitus, as a group they stood out overall as being the least concerned of the four
gender-sexual identity groups, especially with respect to an audience of other men. Findings
on the heterosexual men distinguish them from both groups of women and non-heterosexual
men. In addition, the data provide partial support for the expectation that non-heterosexual
women would not show as much concern over the fecal habitus as heterosexual women. Al-
though the data from the closed-ended questions show a tendency in this direction (Table 3),
the differences are not statistically significant. On the other hand, the data from the open-
ended questions show that the non-heterosexual women were not as likely as the heterosex-
ual women to mention such concerns as fecal matters drastically altering a social relationship.
The overall patterns, thus, support our assertion that the fecal habitus is not fully univer-
sal but is mediated by socio-cultural factors. As suggested, gender differences operate along
cultural lines that make modesty more of a value for women than for men. Sexual identity
differences build on this but seem to have further differentiating effects, as non-heterosexuals
can become detached from traditional gender expectations. The effects of these contextual
factors are overlooked by Inglis (2000) in his formulation of the concept of “the modern
faecal habitus” (p. 52).
At the same time, our results do show the co-existence of a more general fecal habitus
among the participants from different gender-sexual identity groups. For example, for all of
the groups, how well one knows another affects one’s feelings in a curvilinear way. Concern
over the breach of the habitus is diminished with an audience of those either closest to or fur-
thest from oneself (e.g., a spouse and a stranger). We explain this in terms of the threat to
self-presentation. For those closest to them, people generally expect that given the deeper
and continuous nature of such a relationship, a negative event like a fecal mishap will not
destroy an overall positive regard. The opinions of strangers also do not pose much of a
threat, as any incompatible presentation of self is fleeting.
We recognize the limitations of the study. Based on studies of volunteer bias (Weiderman
1999), we suspect the study group lacked many who feel the most concern regarding fecal
events as they would be the least likely to volunteer to be in such a study. At the same time,
we did get a lot of study participants who were concerned over breaching the fecal habitus. In
addition, because this is a college group, the age of the respondent as a mediating contextual
factor was limited in scope. (As mentioned earlier, in the poll of a representative sample of
Fecal Matters 331
the state we did find older residents to be less concerned over these breaches.) Also, our sex-
ual identity categorization suffers from the conflation of gay and bisexual identities into a
simple non-heterosexual status. The small number of participants with such identities pro-
hibited our keeping them in separate groups. At the same time, those who identified as bisex-
ual versus gay/lesbian did not differ significantly from each other in their answers to the
questions in the study. However, even combining the gay and bisexual men only resulted in a
group of 19 non-heterosexual men.
Theoretical Issues
Our results may help to revitalize deviance theory (see Best 2004; Goode 2002, 2003).
The findings illustrate how a universal physical act can become socially complex through the
anticipations of deviant attribution. Deviance theory may be elaborated by linking it to cur-
rent sociological interest in the body (see Crossley 2001; Evans and Lee 2002; Gubrium and
Holstein 2003; Williams and Bendelow 1998). An important theme in this recent work

stresses the limits of social constructionist approaches to the body and argues for introducing
the “real body” into analysis. Through the use of the concept of embodiment, moreover, the
material and constructionist approaches can be integrated, avoiding such false dichotomies as
body/mind, nature/culture, and reason/emotion. Thus, all social practices are seen as em-
bodied activities. As Carol Thomas (2002) notes, we must accept “the real materiality of
bodies whilst at the same time understand the ways in which bodies simultaneously are
always interpreted” (p. 77). The concept of embodiment helps us understand the everyday
social problems surrounding fecal matters, adding to the corpus of deviance theory in several
ways.
One, we illustrate how action is embodied by considering the senses through which fecal
deviance is first known. Culturally, the senses are organized into a hierarchy with the visual
sense at the top (see Classen 1993; Synnott 1993). In our study, we find concerns over the
viewing of feces to be the most upsetting; this is followed by smell in the anticipation of dis-
gust (see Falk 1994; Largey and Watson 1972). Even though in fecal deviance more than one
sense (vision, smell, and sound) can be simultaneously activated, which sense is assaulted
can produce different degrees and kinds of discomfort on the part of both the self and the
audience.
Two, embodiment also plays a crucial role in those theories of emotion that see emotions
as embodied thoughts (Katz 1999; Rosaldo 1984). Thus, Goffman (1967) lists the objective
signs of embarrassment (blushing, fumbling, stuttering, sweating, blanching, etc.) that can
occur when identity claims are unfulfilled. In this way emotions reinforce social order by act-
ing to integrate private feelings and public moralities (Scheper-Hughes and Lock 1987). In
this article, we have provided concrete examples of how persons can feel distraught by their
fecal mishaps and so flustered that they are unable to conduct themselves comfortably in
social interaction. Further, such emotional reactions, and their anticipation, were seen to pro-
voke certain behaviors—in this case, various forms of distancing. This process reflects Simon J.
Williams and Gillian Bendelow’s (1998) point that reason and emotion are mutually involved
in following rules. Thus, the decisions made in honoring the fecal habitus not only entail cog-
nitive social problems prevention work; they also involve working with emotions. Orderly
interaction will ensue only if the individual is successful in bringing his or her “feelings back
into tempo and himself [or herself] back into play” (Goffman 1967:102). At the same time, in
Goffman’s work there may be an overemphasis on conscious self projection (Lyng and Franks
2002). The embodied nature of strong emotions like embarrassment may be so acutely felt
that the body reacts “with such immediacy that it may appear that it did so without the inter-
vention of . . . consciousness, or the self, [as if it were] working entirely on its own” (de Swann
1990:168). Such experiences, moreover, may outlast the situation that produced them and
have continuing emotional and interactional effects.
Three, we also found that vigilance concerning breaches of body boundaries was of
greater concern for heterosexual women whose body image was mediated by cultural notions
of “feminine” demeanor. Clearly, we can see how gender may provide a context for the gen-
eration of incompatible selves as it prescribes even stricter applications of the fecal habitus for
some persons. Gender, then, is far from merely a surface-level phenomenon, but is embodied
even in connection with the most intimate bodily functions. Thus, the habitus can reinforce
gender inequality through the anxiety, embarrassment, and shame it engenders in many
women (see Martin 1998). This is also shown through one concrete expression of the fecal
habitus, the public toilet. Women more often have to queue to use such facilities than do
men. This is because men ignore women’s different physiological needs and trivialize the
issue of toilet provision, such barriers reflecting “an embodiment of male power within cul-
tural and political institutions” (Edwards and McKie 1997:148). Such discrimination is physi-
cally felt by women as they must delay the need to relieve themselves which can result in the
fear of getting to the toilet in time. Even when the urge is less intense, as they stand in line

women can feel embarrassed over making a private matter public. This is a further example
of Goffman’s (1967) general point that embarrassment can be built into an establishment
ecologically.
We expected the non-heterosexual women to differ from the heterosexual women, as
this form of gender inequality may be felt less, given a presumption of indifference to male
scrutiny of their bodies. However, we do not come up with many dissimilar findings for
them. We attribute this to some deeper aspects of gender—the general fear of the dissolution
of body boundaries, especially through its emanations, which has been written about by
many feminist commentators (see Grosz 1994; Longhurst 2001; Roper 1994; Shildrick 1997).
Thus, women are said to see themselves as having more boundary problems and therefore to
be more prone to corporeal transgression. Women’s bodies are seen as more abject, “a realm
associated primarily with the adult female body in its perceived fluidity and capacity to
change, to bleed, to reproduce” (Brook 1999:14–15). Despite the non-heterosexual women’s
lesser concern with traditional feminine ideals of attractiveness, this may be a surface issue
less important than the deeper structural theme that connects women to having more per-
meable, “leaky,” and “oozing” bodies (see Shildrick 1997). To this extent, recognition of the
embodiment of gender discrimination can complement a solely constructionist understand-
ing of their body consciousness.
Four, we do not assume that people are simply “cultural dopes”; persons do not always
unreflexively follow the dictates of the fecal habitus. Even Goffman has been criticized for
not recognizing that people can be oblivious to embarrassment or intentionally risk it (Schud-
son 1984). Our data contain many instances in which disregard for the dictates of the habitus
are expressed (especially by the heterosexual men). For young men, distancing oneself from
the fecal habitus can represent the embodiment of a privileged male status. Thus, we find the
anticipation of humorous reactions to fecal mishaps and the intentional acting out of
breaches that seem far removed from the feelings of dread that some authors see accompany-
ing corporeal transgressions of this kind. For example, we have seen among the students the
attempt to playfully shift blame over their own fecal mishaps to another person. Adopting
the role of the “falsely accused” in this way often produced a situation charged with humor
(see Blinde and Taub 1992, who note that studies of labeling should not ignore the false ac-
cuser). Additionally, flouting the habitus seemed an enjoyable way of signifying contempt for
adult middle-class norms. This is similar to Charles M. Terry’s (2005) discussion of “insubordi-
nate farting” (p. 343) among prison inmates. As others have noted (Terry and Urla 1995),
the body can play a role in resistance to various hegemonies. While the heterosexual men
can show their power through indifference to the fecal habitus, the non-heterosexual men can
show resistance to masculinist hegemony by their greater respect for body boundaries.
Fecal Matters 333
Five, our findings also have relevance for the study of stigma. The universality of bodily
phenomena like fecal matters can confuse the distinction between “normals” and “deviants,”
the essential base for much deviance theory. There will never be a time for anyone when
fecal mishaps fade away or become of no salience at all (in fact, with old age they can
worsen). In other words, the ever present possibility of body betrayal means that there are no
“timeouts” where not being stigmatized in this way can be guaranteed. Further, for embodied
deviance of this type it is difficult to identify typical deviant careers. This is not to say that
fecal events do not create more stable forms of deviance. Organized groups exist to deal with
problems like colostomies and such. And, there may be subcultures that routinely breach the
habitus. For example, in pre-AIDS San Francisco there existed a subgroup of non-heterosexual
men devoted to “shit play”—where participants played with feces and defecated on each
other in what was defined as a sexual context (Weinberg et al. 1994). (These “shit clubs”
show how local cultures can also affect the embodiment of the fecal habitus, another unex-
plored mediating factor.) In this case, it showed non-heterosexual men distancing themselves
more from the habitus than did heterosexual men—the opposite of what we found at the

time and place of the present study.
Even with proactive strategies (e.g., humor), for most persons there are limits to the pos-
itive framing of fecal matters. Thus, there may be limits to tinkering with the fecal habitus,
even among heterosexual men, which indicates how deeply disgust is embodied in us. This
demonstrates Goffman’s (1974) contention that underlying social interaction may be core or
primary frames that limit definitions of the situation and that these are located in a real phys-
ical world inhabited by real human bodies. This is not to say that the habitus cannot be mod-
ified or ignored on particular occasions or in particular social situations. We have shown how
social location and audience can affect it in this way. Also, larger social changes can alter the
threshold of tolerance for fecal offence as described by Norbert Elias (1978), Alain Corbin
(1986), and David Inglis and Mary Holmes (2000). And changes in the habitus continue
today. For example, unisex toilets (in schools especially) are no longer uncommon in some
European countries. These are designed to reduce the embarrassment of elimination among
children (Barry 2000). But, Miss Manners (2002) still advises persons concerned with unwel-
come bathroom sounds that “Polite people don’t notice,” a Goffmanian injunction to “civil
inattention.” And the comedian Dave Barry (2004) not only bemoans “low-flow” toilets
which clog easily, but those high-tech public toilets with automatic sensors that force the user
to wait while the toilet “decides” to flush. The problem of distancing seems always with us.
Some instances may reflect surface changes in the wider culture, fads, and fashions. We
are also interested in deeper changes. If, as we have shown, embodiment is an important
dimension in understanding everyday social problems, are changes in embodiment occurring
that may affect the operation of the fecal habitus today? We can offer one example. Media
accounts refer to the emergence of a new body type—“the metrosexual.” This person is a met-
ropolitan heterosexual man who follows gay men in having a heightened concern with
grooming, body tone, and appearance, a “new type of feminized man” (St. John 2003).
Should this new embodiment of heterosexuality be influential, then we would predict that
the differences between heterosexual men and other groups with regard to the fecal habitus
could be reduced.
In conclusion, we have tried to bring the real body and its boundaries into sociological
theorizing about deviance. In this way, we see bodies as not just constructed by discursive
practices but as the vehicles by which we come to relate the symbolic and the material. By
highlighting corporeal concerns, we understand how the body is co-presently both real and
constructed and how it is involved in everyday social problems. Using the concept of “embod-
iment” grasps this process and allows for a more “carnal” sociology (Crossley 1995) that can
help to invigorate the sociology of deviance.
References
Adler, Patricia A. and Peter Adler. 2003. Constructions of Deviance: Social Power, Context, and Interaction. Bel-
mont, CA: Wadsworth/Thomson.
Barry, Dave. 2004. “It’s Time to Plunge into the World Toilet Problem.” Indianapolis Star, November 7,
p. J7.
Barry, Kevin. 2000. “Are You Ready for Unisex Toilets?” (London) Times Educational Supplement, November
20, pp. 6, 2p, 3c.
Best, Joel. 2004. Deviance: Career of a Concept. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Thomson.
Blinde, Elaine M. and Diane E. Taub. 1992. “Women Athletes as Falsely Accused Deviants: Managing the
Lesbian Stigma.” Sociological Quarterly 33:521–33.
Brekhus, Wayne H. 2003. Peacocks, Chameleons, Centaurs: Gay Suburbia and the Grammar of Social Identity.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Brook, Barbara. 1999. Feminist Perspectives on the Body. London: Longman.
Cahill, Spencer, William Distler, Cynthia Lachowetz, Andrea Meaney, Royn Tarallo, and Teena Willard.
1985. “Meanwhile Backstage: Public Bathrooms and the Interaction Order.” Urban Life 14:33–58.
Callero, Peter L. 2003. “The Sociology of the Self.” Annual Review of Sociology 29:115–33.

Classen, Constance. 1993. Worlds of Sense: Exploring the Senses in History and across Culture. London: Routledge.
Connell, Robert W. 2002a. “Hegemonic Masculinity.” Pp. 60–62 in Gender: A Sociological Reader, edited by
Stevi Jackson and Sue Scott. London: Routledge.
———. 2002b. “On Hegemonic Masculinity and Violence: Response to Jefferson and Hall.” Theoretical
Criminology 6:89–99.
Corbin, Alain. 1986. The Foul and the Fragrant: Odor and the French Social Imagination. Cambridge, MA: Har-
vard University Press.
Creed, Barbara. 1999. “Lesbian Bodies: Tribades, Tomboys, and Tarts.” Pp. 111–24 in Feminist Theory and
the Body, edited by Janet Price and Margrit Shildrick. New York: Routledge.
Crossley, Nick. 1995. “Body Techniques, Agency and Intercorporeality: On Goffman’s Relations in Public.”
Sociology 29:133–49.
———. 2001. The Social Body: Habit, Identity and Desire. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
de Swann, Abram. 1990. The Management of Normality: Critical Essays in Health and Welfare. London: Routledge.
Diamond, Lisa M. 2003. “Was It a Phase? Young Women’s Relinquishment of Lesbian/Bisexual Identities
over a 5-Year Period.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 84:352–64.
Edwards, Julia and Linda McKie. 1997. “Women’s Public Toilets: A Serious Issue for the Body Politic.” Pp.
135–49 in Embodied Practices: Feminist Perspectives on the Body, edited by Kathy Davis. London: Sage.
Elias, Norbert. 1978. The Civilizing Process, vol. 1. New York: Pantheon.
Evans, Mary and Ellie Lee. 2002. Real Bodies: A Sociological Introduction. New York: Palgrave.
Falk, Pasi. 1994. The Consuming Body. London: Sage.
Featherstone, Mike and Mike Hepworth. 1991. “The Mask of Aging and the Postmodern Lifecourse.” Pp.
371–89 in The Body: Social Processes and Cultural Theory, edited by Mike Featherstone, Mike Hepworth,
and Bryan S. Turner. London: Sage.
Fingerson, Laura. 2001. “Social Construction, Power, and Agency in Adolescent Menstrual Talk.” Ph.D.
Dissertation Thesis, Department of Sociology, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN.
Goffman, Erving. 1967. Interaction Ritual: Essays on Face-to-Face Behavior. Garden City, NY: Anchor Books.
———. 1971. Relations in Public: Microstudies of the Public Order. New York: Harper and Row.
———. 1974. Frame Analysis. New York: Harper.
Goode, Erich. 2002. “Does the Death of the Sociology of Deviance Claim Make Sense?” The American So-
ciologist 33:107–18.
———. 2003. “The Macguffin that Refuses to Die: An Investigation into the Condition of the Sociology of
Deviance.” Deviant Behavior 24:507–33.
Gordon, Liahna. 2005. “Lesbians’ Resistance to Culturally Defined Attractiveness.” Pp. 344–49 in Devi-
ance: The Interactionist Perspective, 9th ed., edited by Earl Rubington and Martin S. Weinberg. Boston:
Allyn and Bacon.
Gross, Edward and Gregory P. Stone. 1964. “Embarrassment and the Analysis of Role Requirements.”
American Journal of Sociology 70:1–15.
Grosz, Elizabeth. 1994. Volatile Bodies: Toward a Corporeal Feminism. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University
Press.
Fecal Matters 335
Gubrium, Jaber F. and James A. Holstein. 2003. “The Everyday Visibility of the Aging Body.” Pp. 205–28
in Aging Bodies: Images of Everyday Experience, edited by Christopher A. Faircloth. Walnut Creek, CA:
Altamira Press.
Holstein, James A. and Gale Miller. 2003. “Social Constructionism and Social Problems Work.” Pp. 70–91
in Challenge and Choices: Constructionist Perspectives on Social Problems, edited by James A. Holstein and
Gale Miller. New York: Aldine de Gruyter.
Inglis, David. 2000. A Sociological History of Excretory Experience: Defecatory Manners and Toiletry Technologies.
Lewiston, NY: The Edwin Mellen Press.
Inglis, David and Mary Holmes. 2000. “Toiletry Time: Defecation, Temporal Strategies and the Dilemmas
of Modernity.” Time and Society 9:507–33.
Johnson, Mark. 1987. The Body in the Mind: The Bodily Basis of Meaning, Imagination and Reason. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Karp, David A., William C. Yoels, and Barbara H. Vann. 2004. Sociology in Everyday Life. Long Grove, IL:
Waveland Press.
Katz, Jack. 1999. How Emotions Work. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Kiley, Dean. 1998. “Queer Crash Test Dummies: Theory, Aging, and Embodiment Problematics.” Pp.
327–44 in Looking Queer: Body Image and Identity in Lesbians, Gay, and Transgender Communities, edited

by Dawn Atkins. Binghamton, NY: Hawthorn Press.
Kira, Alexander. 1967. The Bathroom: Criteria for Design. Ithaca, NY: Center for Housing and Environmen-
tal Studies, Cornell University.
Largey, Gayle P. and David R. Watson. 1972. “The Sociology of Odors.” American Journal of Sociology
77:1021–34.
Lee, Janet and Jennifer Sasser-Coen. 1996. Blood Stories: Menarche and the Politics of the Female Body in Con-
temporary U.S. Society. New York: Routledge.
Longhurst, Robyn. 2001. Exploring Fluid Boundaries. London: Routledge.
Lyman, Peter. 2001. “The Fraternal Bond as a Joking Relationship.” Pp. 157–68 in Men’s Lives, edited by
Michael Kimmel and Michael A. Messner. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Lyng, Stephen and David D. Franks. 2002. Sociology and the Real World. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.
Markus, Hazel Rose, Patricia R. Mullally, and Shinobu Kityama. 1997. “Selfways: Diversity in Modes of
Cultural Participation.” Pp. 13–61 in The Conceptual Self in Context: Culture, Experience, Self-Understanding,
edited by Ulric Neisser and David A. Jopling. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Martin, Karen A. 1998. “Becoming a Gendered Body: Practices of Preschools.” American Sociological Review
63:494–511.
Miller, Rowland S. 1996. Embarrassment: Poise and Peril in Everyday Life. New York: Guilford Press.
Miller, William Ian. 1997. The Anatomy of Disgust. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Mishkind, Marc E., Judith Rodin, Lisa R. Silberstein, and Ruth H. Striegel-Moore. 2001. “The Embodi-
ment of Masculinity: Cultural, Psychological and Behavioral Dimensions.” Pp. 103–20 in The Ameri-
can Body in Context, edited by Jessica R. Johnson. Wilmington, DE: Scholarly Resources.
Miss Manners. 2002. “Manners Even Matter in the Bathroom.” Hoosier Times, August 4, p. J3.
Mitteness, Linda. 1987. “So What Do You Expect When You’re 85?: Urinary Incontinence in Late Life.”
Research in the Sociology of Health Care 6:177–219.
Munt, Sally R. 1998. “Orifices in Space: Making the Real Possible.” Pp. 200–9 in Butch/Femme: Inside Les-
bian Gender, edited by Sally R. Munt. London: Cassell.
Parrott, W. Gerrod and Rom Harré. 1996. “Embarrassment and the Threat to Character.” Pp. 39–56 in The
Emotions: Social, Cultural, and Biological Dimensions, edited by Rom Harré and W. Gerrod Parrott. New
York: Sage.
Power, Mick and Tim Dalgleish. 1997. Cognition and Emotion: From Order to Disorder. London: Taylor and
Francis.
Roper, Lyndal. 1994. Oedipus and the Devil: Witchcraft, Sexuality, and Religion in Early Modern Europe. Lon-
don: Routledge.
Rosaldo, Michelle. 1984. “Toward an Anthropology of Self and Feeling.” Pp. 137–57 in Culture Theory: Es-
says on Mind, Self and Emotion, edited by Richard Schweder and Robert Levine. Cambridge: Cam-
bridge University Press.
Rozin, Paul, Jonathan Haidt, and Clark R. McCauley. 1993. “Disgust.” Pp. 575–94 in Handbook of Emo-
tions, edited by Michael Lewis and Jeannette M. Haviland. New York: The Guilford Press.
Rubington, Earl and Martin S. Weinberg. 2003. The Study of Social Problems: Seven Perspectives. New York:
Oxford University Press.
Savin-Williams, Ritch C. 2001. “Memories of Same-Sex Attractions.” Pp. 117–33 in Men’s Lives, edited by
Michael S. Kimmel and Michael Messner. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Scheper-Hughes, Nancy and Margaret Lock. 1987. “The Mindful Body: A Prologemon to Future Work in
Medical Anthropology.” Medical Anthropology Quarterly 1:6–41.
Schudson, Michael. 1984. “Embarrassment and Erving Goffman’s Idea of Human Nature.” Theory and
Society 13:633–48.
Shildrick, Margrit. 1997. Leaky Bodies and Boundaries: Feminism, Postmodernism and (Bio)ethics. New York:
Routledge.
Shiu-Ki, Travis Kong. 2004. “Queer at Your Own Risk: Marginality, Community and Hong Kong Gay
Male Bodies.” Sexualities 7:5–30.
St. John, Warren. 2003. “Metrosexuals Come Out.” New York Times, June 22, Section 9, p. 1.
Synnott, Anthony. 1993. The Body Social: Symbolism, Self and Society. London: Routledge.
Terry, Charles M. 2005. “The Function of Humor for Prison Inmates.” Pp. 337–47 in Social Deviance: Read-
ings in Theory and Research, fifth edition, edited by Henry N. Pontell. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice
Hall.
Terry, Jennifer and Jaqueline Urla. 1995. Deviant Bodies: Critical Perspectives on Difference in Science and Popu-
lar Culture. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

Thomas, Carol. 2002. “The Disabled Body.” Pp. 64–78 in Real Bodies: A Sociological Introduction, edited by
Mary Evans and Ellie Lee. New York: Palgrave.
Turner, Bryan S. 2000. “An Outline of a General Sociology of the Body.” Pp. 480–501 in The Blackwell
Companion to Social Theory, edited by Bryan S. Turner. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
———. 2003. “Social Fluids: Metaphors and Meanings of Society.” Body and Society 9:1–10.
Waskul, Dennis D. and Pamela van der Riet. 2002. “The Abject Embodiment of Cancer Patients: Dignity,
Selfhood, and the Grotesque Body.” Symbolic Interaction 25:487–513.
Weiderman, Michael W. 1999. “Volunteer Bias in Sexuality Research Using College Student Partici-
pants.” Journal of Sex Research 36:59–66.
Weinberg, Martin S. 1968. “Embarrassment: Its Variable and Invariable Aspects.” Social Forces 46:382–88.
Weinberg, Martin S., Colin J. Williams, and Douglas W. Pryor. 1994. Dual Attraction: Understanding Bisexu-
ality. New York: Oxford University Press.
Williams, Simon J. and Gillian Bendelow. 1998. The Lived Body: Sociological Themes, Embodied Issues. Lon-
don: Routledge.

Fecal Matters: Habitus, Embodiments, and Deviance: Martin S. Weinberg, Colin J. Williams

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Fecal Matters: Habitus, Embodiments, and Deviance: Martin S. Weinberg, Colin J. Williams

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Fecal Matters: Habitus, Embodiments, and Deviance: Martin S. Weinberg, Colin J. Williams

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Fecal Matters: Habitus, Embodiments,

Downloaded from http://socpro.oxfordjournals.org/ by guest on October 23, 2016

The social constructionist perspective dominates the sociological approach to social

Downloaded from http://socpro.oxfordjournals.org/ by guest on October 23, 2016

euphemisms and circumlocutions). In general, defecation practices are not considered a

Downloaded from http://socpro.oxfordjournals.org/ by guest on October 23, 2016

Downloaded from http://socpro.oxfordjournals.org/ by guest on October 23, 2016

Downloaded from http://socpro.oxfordjournals.org/ by guest on October 23, 2016

Downloaded from http://socpro.oxfordjournals.org/ by guest on October 23, 2016

Body Betrayal and Proximity/Distance

Downloaded from http://socpro.oxfordjournals.org/ by guest on October 23, 2016

These experiences of “body betrayal” and “proximity/distance” reflect the embodiment

Downloaded from http://socpro.oxfordjournals.org/ by guest on October 23, 2016

Sights and Smells

It is an unsought intimacy. As put by a heterosexual woman:

Downloaded from http://socpro.oxfordjournals.org/ by guest on October 23, 2016

Following the imperative of “deodorization,” the most frequently mentioned strategy

Downloaded from http://socpro.oxfordjournals.org/ by guest on October 23, 2016

As we have seen, such a response of disgust is an anticipated reaction to an unwanted

A heterosexual woman concurred:

Downloaded from http://socpro.oxfordjournals.org/ by guest on October 23, 2016

Heterosexual Non-Heterosexual Heterosexual Non-Heterosexual

Anticipations regarding sound

To systematically study the audience feature of embarrassment we looked at various

Downloaded from http://socpro.oxfordjournals.org/ by guest on October 23, 2016

Table 2 • Discomfort over Bowel Movement being Overheard, as Related to Type of

Social Relationship Mean Standard Deviation

Attracted to person (but not dated yet) 2.19 .93

Downloaded from http://socpro.oxfordjournals.org/ by guest on October 23, 2016

The other stated,

Downloaded from http://socpro.oxfordjournals.org/ by guest on October 23, 2016

Heterosexual Non-Heterosexual Heterosexual Non-Heterosexual

Attracted to person 2.41 1.97 2.05 2.21

Downloaded from http://socpro.oxfordjournals.org/ by guest on October 23, 2016

Summary and Caveats

Downloaded from http://socpro.oxfordjournals.org/ by guest on October 23, 2016

Downloaded from http://socpro.oxfordjournals.org/ by guest on October 23, 2016

Downloaded from http://socpro.oxfordjournals.org/ by guest on October 23, 2016

Downloaded from http://socpro.oxfordjournals.org/ by guest on October 23, 2016

Downloaded from http://socpro.oxfordjournals.org/ by guest on October 23, 2016

Downloaded from http://socpro.oxfordjournals.org/ by guest on October 23, 2016

Downloaded from http://socpro.oxfordjournals.org/ by guest on October 23, 2016

You might also like