Abstract

This response to Gould and Semaan’s (2014) commentary aims to both clarify misinterpretations of and extend the positions taken in our article, “Women’s Bodies as Sites of Control: Inadvertent Stigma and Exclusion in Social Marketing.” Specifically, our response focuses on four areas: the ruse of individual responsibility and choice; the disciplinary and normalizing effects of surveillance; moving beyond micro-level “hot” and “cold” tactics; and the marginalizing effects of healthism. We conclude with a call for greater ethical responsibility in social marketing scholarship and practice, particularly through macro-level engagements at the socio-cultural level as a means of addressing the inadvertent effects of overly simplified campaign messages and images framed through the prism of neo-liberalism that manage and control the bodies of women.

Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call