their ability to decide what they want to do . While in today ’ s world , the person in the fat body is not in that type of literal danger , it does not negate the sentiment that Foucault was attempting to convey . As an example of the dismantling and rearranging aspects of bodily machinery , the person in the fat body , through constant bombardment of media messages , has been placed in a position of blame for rising insurance costs . Therefore , because they have let society down with their failure , they are considered lesser beings . With the person in the fat body categorized as lesser , those controlling the person in the fat body under the guise of “ helping ” it do not want to be questioned by those who possess the very bodies they are attempting to fix . Similarly , just as the Leviathan want the humans to willingly be food for them , agents of the thin body discourse want to be able to act with impunity because they possess the knowledge and truth that the fat “ obviously ” do not ; therefore , the fat do not have a right to question them . This phenomenon of “ experts as moral guardians ,” who , because of their authority and knowledge , are able to pass judgment on others , is the seat of oppression of the fat body ( Inthorn 89 ).
In order to have bodies that will abide by the strictures placed upon them by society , the person in the fat body must become docile . The production of docile bodies requires that an uninterrupted coercion be directed toward body activity in order to produce rigid and precise control over a body that cannot be maintained without a minute and relentless surveillance ( Foucault 141 ). While the level of surveillance by the Leviathan on the humans was so unbelievably thorough as to be laughable , the fact remains that a similar scenario does exist in society today for the person in the fat body . The person in the fat body is under surveillance every minute of every day through judgments of their food choice , clothing choice , activity level , television watching , and a variety of other aspects of their day-to-day lives . This constant surveillance is reminiscent of Foucault ’ s Panopticon . When scrutinized further , the comparison to Foucault ’ s Panopticon is apt considering that the fat body is placed in a position that removes their ability to make any choice except the societally appropriate one . If the wrong choice is made , the threat of punishment in the form of scorn , exclusion , or ridicule exists .
The anonymity of the Panopticon and the surveillance that form it are the base of its power . This widely dispersed power leads to the subordination of those with the socially unacceptable body . Attempts to escape from the Panopticon or from social surveillance are seen as deviant , and further marginalization and punishment ensues . As a result , the person in the fat body begins self-policing , making decisions on the basis of what will please those performing the surveillance . This removes the agency from
61