Socy 100 - Deviant Behavior
Deviant or Normal? Female Bodybuilders’ Accounts of Social Reactions
Ruth A. Chananie-Hill
University of Northern Iowa, Cedar Falls, Iowa, USA
Shelly A. McGrath
University of Alabama Birmingham, Birmingham, Alabama, USA
Justin Stoll
Boston University, Boston, Massachusetts, USA
In response to calls for more inclusive and nuanced studies of deviance, Heckert and Heckert (2002)
developed a typology that incorporates both normative and reactive definitions. Their model
accounts for negative deviance, positive deviance, deviance admiration, and deviant conformity
(rate-busting). Through participant observation and in-depth interviews with ten amateur female
bodybuilders at a university in the United States, we apply the typology to explain their perceptions
of social reactions from a variety of audiences. Female bodybuilders’ accounts of others’ reactions to
their increasingly muscular bodies, extreme dieting practices, and intense workout routines provide
intriguing empirical examples of all four deviance types. Findings reflect the complexity of a
deviance–conformity continuum and support the call for studies that go beyond negative social
response and countercultural behavior or appearance.
Female bodybuilders’ highly muscled bodies continue to attract attention from mainstream
audiences and media in Western cultures, and much of it is negative or derogatory, although sub-
cultural audience reactions tend to be much more positive. Researchers have drawn on a variety
of theoretical and disciplinary perspectives to describe and analyze these disparate discourses
(Choi 2003; Heywood 1998; Lowe 1998; Richardson 2008; Roussel et al. 2010; Shilling
and Bunsell 2009). However, we were unable to find any published research analyzing female
bodybuilding using a theoretical deviance framework, although some studies focus on deviant
aspects of the male bodybuilding subculture (e.g., Denham 2008; Klein 1986). Although male
bodybuilders are also viewed as deviant by some audiences for their super-striated, bulky mus-
cularity, such muscle on a woman garners even greater scrutiny due to fairly stringent Western
Received 20 June 2011; accepted 10 November 2011.
We thank John Heith Copes, Kevin Leicht, the anonymous reviewers for Deviant Behavior, and the female
bodybuilders who participated in this research for their helpful input and suggestions.
Address correspondence to Ruth A. Chananie-Hill, Department of Sociology, Anthropology, and Criminology,
University of Northern Iowa, Baker Hall 356, Cedar Falls, IA 50614-0513, USA. E-mail: rchill@uni.edu
Deviant Behavior, 33: 811–830, 2012
Copyright # Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
ISSN: 0163-9625 print / 1521-0456 online
DOI: 10.1080/01639625.2011.647592
gender norms of what an ideal female body should look like (Choi 2003). Thus, scholars
typically discuss bodybuilding, and especially female bodybuilding, as counternormative, which Ewald and Jiobu (1985) define as nonconformity to accepted social norms.
Nevertheless, bodybuilding encompasses at least three normative activities when not per-
ceived as going to extremes: building strength and toning muscle, dieting and nutrition, and
exercise routines. These activities are lauded in Western cultures as healthy and therefore
encouraged and even valorized (Markula 1995), which makes them pronormative (Ewald and
Jiobu 1985). By pronormative, we mean conforming to or going in the direction of desirable social norms. Such behavior generally garners social approval, unless audiences perceive that
actors cross a boundary of acceptability. By audiences, we mean various groups or individual
observers, who react to the appearance or behavior of others. Such reactions might be negative,
positive, or ambivalent, and can change over time and in context.
Existing theory espouses two distinct definitions of deviance: normative and reactive. The
normative definition refers to behavior, beliefs, or physical traits that break the standard norms of a given society, either statistically or by failure to follow formally or informally enforced
social rules (Becker 1973; Scarpitti and McFarlane 1975). However, the classic normative
approach focuses on rule-breakers, assuming that there is something inherently wrong or dys-
functional about them (such as drug users), and dismisses simple statistical abnormalities as
irrelevant to deviance studies (such as left-handedness). Nevertheless, some deviance scholars
argue that to ignore behavior, appearances, or beliefs that are unusual or statistically anomalous,
whether in a positive or negative direction, fails to account for the full spectrum of human beha-
vior (Dodge 1985; Scarpitti and McFarlane 1975). Therefore, the positive, or pronormative,
direction implies behavior, appearance, or beliefs that are in line with or moving toward align-
ment with current societal norms, even if statistically deviant. The negative, or counternorma-
tive, direction indicates the opposite, such as rule or norm breaking (Ewald and Jiobu 1985).
Thus, deviant (or statistically unusual) behavior under this normative definition can range from
heinous murder to inventing the cure for cancer.
However, pinpointing the directionality of a particular incidence of deviance—provided one accurately identifies and interprets the social norms of a given society—fails to account for spe- cific context, setting, and audience (Scarpitti and McFarlane 1975), and does not explain why
some individuals or groups are labeled as deviant while similar others are not (Becker 1973).
For this, a reactive definition of deviance is necessary (Goode 1991; also referred to as the label- ing perspective or interactionist theory, see Becker 1973). The classic reactive approach sees
deviance only where actual or anticipated negative social responses are bestowed upon the norm
violator, and these vary depending on the situation. As Goode (1991:291) argues, ‘‘if no such
[negative] reactions take place or are forthcoming, deviance simply does not exist.’’ Addition-
ally, the labeling perspective interrogates the roles of power and status regarding who and what
is labeled deviant in a given society or context, and posits that deviance itself is socially con-
structed. In other words, ‘‘social groups create deviance by making the rules whose infraction
constitutes deviance,’’ and thus deviance can be noted by societal or group response to
rule-breaking (Becker 1973:9).
Proponents of positive deviance argue that when both normative and reactive definitions are
taken into account, positive reactions to some forms of deviance do indeed exist and are crucial
to a broader understanding of social norms (Ben-Yehuda 1990). Therefore, although deviance
scholars do not always agree on this point, we adopt the argument that deviance should be
812 R. A. CHANANIE-HILL ET AL.
defined in both normative and reactionary terms, following Heckert and Heckert’s (2002) formu-
lation of a deviance typology that takes both definitions into account. Thus, we borrow Scarpitti
and McFarlane’s (1975:5) definition of social deviance, which ‘‘includes those acts, attributes,
and beliefs which, when performed or made known about an actor, elicit an evaluative social
sanction or sanctions from an observer.’’ Their definition assumes a spectrum of audience
reactions, and allows us to make ‘‘the conclusion that normative adherence ranges along a
continuum that falls to both sides of the strictest interpretation of a norm’’ (Scarpitti and
McFarlane 1975:4). Theoretically, then, we adopt a broad definition of deviance, which enables
us to apply the aforementioned deviance typology, answers the call for ‘‘a full behavior-
deviance continuum’’ that includes both ‘‘exceptionality and directionality’’ (Dodge 1985:
20–23), while embracing the fluidity of the interactionist model that Becker (1973) proposes.
Based on this conceptualization, we rely on participant observation and in-depth interviews
with amateur female bodybuilders to analyze their perceptions of social reactions from strangers
in public spaces, others in the gym (non-bodybuilders who are part of the fitness subculture),
other bodybuilders, and significant others. According to the participants, social reactions varied
considerably from positive and encouraging to negative and inflammatory, depending on the
situation and the bodybuilder’s relationship to the audience. To make sense of these often con-
tradictory discourses, we apply Heckert and Heckert’s (2002) typology of deviance (positive
deviance, negative deviance, deviance admiration, and deviant conformity [rate-busting]) to
interviewees’ accounts of how others reacted to three aspects of female bodybuilding: increas-
ingly muscular bodies, extreme dieting practices, and intense workout routines. One goal for this
research is to shed light on the complex, dynamic experiences of female bodybuilders that sup-
port ours and others’ contention that deviance studies should take the full range of social reac-
tions into consideration in order to better understand the spectrum of deviance-conformity.
Another is to explore female bodybuilding from a deviance perspective, which to our
knowledge, has not been addressed.
POSITIVE DEVIANCE
The viability of the concept of positive deviance remains contested. Goode (1991) and Sagarin
(1985) argue that the term itself is an oxymoron; that the very notion of sociological deviance
requires a negative audience reaction to some human behavior or condition in order for deviance
to be present. Therefore, working from the position of a strict reactionary definition, positive
deviance would indeed seem oxymoronic. Nevertheless, positive deviance holds the imagination
of a subset of deviance scholars, who continue to revise and expand its definition and apply the
concept to various empirical phenomena (Ben-Yehuda 1990; Dodge 1985; Ewald and Jiobu
1985; Heckert and Heckert 2002, 2004; Hughes and Coakley 1991; Irwin 2003; Spreitzer and
Sonenshein 2004; West 2003; Wolfzorn et al. 2006). We agree with the latter group of scholars
that positive deviance is a viable concept worthy of theoretical and empirical attention. However,
it is not our intention to engage in the ongoing debate and discussion over positive deviance’s
viability, definition, or theoretical underpinnings (for a recent overview and discussion, see
West 2003).
Nevertheless, we incorporate and apply the concept of positive deviance as well as other
types of deviance in this study. As Dentler and Erikson (1959:98) note, ‘‘a theory of deviant
FEMALE BODYBUILDERS AND DEVIANCE 813
behavior should account simultaneously for deviance and conformity; that is, the explanation
of one should serve as the explanation of the other.’’ Dodge (1985:23) echoes these sentiments
by advocating for ‘‘a full behavior-deviance continuum’’ that clearly separates the action or
trait from audience reactions. Ben-Yehuda (1990) also agrees that scholars cannot fully under-
stand culture without examining conformity, and he argues that the concept of positive deviance
provides a tool suited to this purpose. Further, he claims that behavior itself and audience
interpretation of the behavior need to be separated for analysis. In sum, scholars continue to call
for a more nuanced definition of deviance that integrates normative and reactive definitions.
Heckert and Heckert (2002:451) respond in the form of a typology that identifies four
deviance types: negative deviance, or ‘‘behaviors that involve underconformity or nonconform- ity to normative expectations and negative evaluations’’; rate-busting, which is ‘‘overconformity to normative expectations that is negatively evaluated’’; deviance admiration, or ‘‘underconfor- mity or nonconformity that is positively evaluated’’; and positive deviance, which is ‘‘overcon- formity that is positively evaluated.’’ They take care to point out, however, that these categories
are not always discrete in praxis. In other words, in any given context, some audiences might
respond to a particular action, expression, or appearance negatively, while others regard it posi-
tively, or equally likely, reactions manifest some combination of both. Further, they call for
additional empirical attention to such complicating factors as the definition of the situation,
the degree of norm violation, and the level of norm consensus in their application to middle-class
norms (Heckert and Heckert 2004).
Before applying their typology to female bodybuilding, we wish to change the term rate-
busting to deviant conformity. We think the substitution encompasses a wider range of beha- viors and conditions to include those that do not require busting any literal ‘‘rates’’ to
supra-conform to a norm. To be a rate buster seems to involve intentional overproduction of
something. If all overconformity were of the productive type, this category would work well.
Thus, the overly productive miner or straight-A student might fit nicely as rate-busters, but
the term might not adequately reflect, for instance, the nuances of the deviant identity develop-
ment of anorexic and bulimic girls and women, who over-conform to beauty norms by starving
themselves or binging and purging to become extremely thin (McLorg and Taub 1987). Thus,
perhaps deviance scholars should reconsider rate-busting as a subtype of deviant conformity. Additionally, we argue that the term deviant conformity better expresses the paradox of seem-
ingly compliant conformity to social norms that, regardless of the intent of the over-conformist,
results in negative audience reactions and possibly deviant labeling. For example, audience
reactions range from viewing distance running or bodybuilding as ‘‘carrying a good thing too
far’’ (Ewald and Jiobu 1985:144) to extreme negative judgments of female bodybuilders’
visibly muscular, bulging bodies as wrong, disgusting, offensive, or repulsive (Shilling and
Bunsell 2009).
FEMALE BODYBUILDING AS DEVIANCE
As an empirical phenomenon, female bodybuilding is consistently and cross-culturally defined
as deviant based on aggregated individual and societal reactions to perceived transgressions of
traditional gender norms. Although many studies focusing on female bodybuilders incorporate
sub-disciplinary jargon such as stigma and labeling, none of them specifically approach the
814 R. A. CHANANIE-HILL ET AL.
subject using a deviance theoretical framework, although in our opinion, they do justify female
bodybuilders as deserving of special empirical and theoretical attention by deviance scholars.
Indeed, considerable ethnographic and participatory research focuses on the processes and con-
sequences of deviant stigmatization that female bodybuilders experience both within and outside
of the bodybuilding subculture (Boyle 2005; Grogan et al. 2004; Heywood 1998; Lowe 1998;
McGrath and Chananie-Hill 2009; Shilling and Bunsell 2009; Wesely 2001). Mainstream audi-
ences tend to judge male bodybuilders’ obsessive pursuit of large musculature and some of their
other subcultural practices as deviant (Denham 2008; Klein 1986). However, women who build
risk facing virulent, downright nasty audience reactions (Shilling and Bunsell 2009), ostensibly
because they are crossing boundaries of normative behavior in general plus flagrantly flouting acceptable gendered behavior and appearance norms for women. The most common appearance
aspects of female bodybuilders that mainstream audiences find deviant are their large and=or visibly striated muscles, loss of feminine markers such as breast tissue, and masculinizing effects
of perceived or actual steroid use (Grogan et al. 2004; Heywood 1998; Lowe 1998; Wesely
2001). Behaviors audiences often judge as deviant are overt displays of strength, extreme pre-
contest dieting practices, and intense and frequent workout routines (Bolin 1992; Marzano-
Parisoli 2001).
Despite the ubiquitousness of mainstream audiences’ labeling female bodybuilders deviant,
perceptions of such deviance as negative are by no means universal or uncontested. In addition
to considerable subcultural support from fellow bodybuilders and fans (Grogan et al. 2004;
Heywood 1998), many non-participants admire, enjoy, or revere muscular women, sometimes
to the point of sexual fetishism (Richardson 2008). On the other hand, female bodybuilding
and the women who practice it become not only acceptable, but occasionally approach norma-
tive for some more intimate audiences, including family members, friends, and romantic partners
(McGrath and Chananie-Hill 2009).
Although no deviance studies focus specifically on female bodybuilding, some scholars have
paid attention to deviance and female athletes (e.g., Blinde and Taub 1992; Wasielewski 1991)
and there are at least two explorations of positive deviance and (male) sport (Ewald and Jiobu
1985; Hughes and Coakley 1991). Ewald and Jiobu (1985) surveyed male distance runners and
bodybuilders and applied a positive deviance analytical framework to their data, but found sup-
port only for the runners, although the survey questions seem to us mostly irrelevant for body-
builders’ reported motivations and everyday praxis. Nevertheless, their study represents the first
foray of applying a positive deviance perspective to bodybuilding. In addition, their study was a
forerunner to the burgeoning literature on exercise addiction, which is currently attracting
cross-disciplinary attention (e.g., Szabo 2010).
Bodybuilders’ practices of compulsive exercising and disordered eating behaviors have occa-
sioned a great deal of attention and concern from scholars in various disciplines. For example,
feminist scholar Bordo (1990) points out the connections between cultural pressures on women
to conform to the thinness=beauty ideal and female bodybuilders’ compulsive exercise and diet- ing behaviors. She blames wider cultural factors, including increased pressure on women to
exercise and develop lean, toned bodies, media-supported cultural aversion to fat and any loose-
ness of the flesh, and subcultural aspects such as bodybuilders’ desire for control or mastery over
their bodies through anorexic-like dieting and compulsive exercise routines. Others have echoed
her assertions and explored them with a more specific empirical focus on female bodybuilding
(Bolin 1992; Heywood 1996; Marzano-Parisoli 2001; Mitchell 1987).
FEMALE BODYBUILDERS AND DEVIANCE 815
One implication of these collective findings for our current study is that while mainstream
audiences define both male and female bodybuilders as deviating from normative appearance,
health, and fitness practices, they single out female bodybuilders for additional scrutiny due
to their deviation from hegemonic femininity (e.g., large muscles, loss of breast tissue), which
represents negative deviance. Another is encapsulated in the literature on exercise addition and
eating disorders in bodybuilders, which reflect pronormative behaviors taken ‘‘too far’’ and
therefore illustrate deviant conformity and perhaps positive deviance, depending on audience
reaction. Also, subcultural audience support and encouragement of female bodybuilders repre-
sents deviance admiration. Therefore, despite the general lack of deviance literature that focuses
on the topic, we argue that female bodybuilding falls squarely under the purview of deviance
studies, and furthermore, that it lends itself to analysis using Heckert and Heckert’s (2002)
typology (see Table 1).
In sum, while some audiences perceive bodybuilding as part of the normative health and
fitness craze, others perceive it as deviant. Female bodybuilders are both admired for their
muscle and demonized for it, depending on audience and context. Researchers’ focus on
the relationships between eating disorders, compulsive exercise, steroid use, and perceptions
of bodybuilding also reinforces the view of bodybuilding (or certain aspects of it) as deviant
behavior. In our culture, dieting and concern with fat percentages is normative; overdoing it so
that it results in negative consequences for individuals and their loved ones is deviant. In
short, while male bodybuilders participate in deviant activities, female bodybuilders deal with
an extra layer of deviance related to differences in somatic gendered expectations. Therefore,
we turn to in-depth interviews and participation observation within a female bodybuilding sub-
culture to analyze the ways that participants negotiate audience reactions to their activities and
appearances.
TABLE 1
Female Bodybuilding as Representing Heckert and Heckert’s (2002) Typology of Deviance
Type Direction Social reaction Aspects of female bodybuilding
Negative Deviance Counternormative Negative . Bulky musculature=visible striations=veins . Loss of breast tissue . Steroid overuse=abuse . Masculine features or behavior
Positive Deviance Pronormative Positive . Healthy diet & lifestyle . Lean, toned bodies . Emphasis on fitness, strength
Deviance Admiration Counternormative Positive . Zealous, dedicated fans . Admiration or envy from other bodybuilders . Subculture of female muscle worship
Deviant Conformity
(replaces the term
Rate-Busting in
their model)
Pronormative Negative . Obsessive or dangerous dieting and=or workout routines
. ‘‘taking things too far’’
. Exercise addiction
. Anorexic=Bulimic behaviors
. Steroid use
816 R. A. CHANANIE-HILL ET AL.
DATA AND METHOD
We based our ethnographic, qualitative study on participant observation in the college body-
building subculture, and semi-structured, in-depth interviews with ten women who were
involved in college-level amateur bodybuilding at a large university in the Midwestern United
States. The ten interviewees, plus the second author, made up the entire population of active
female bodybuilders at the university at the time of the interviews. The second author, herself
an amateur bodybuilder, trained and competed at the university during a three year period
(2004–2007), and conducted the ten interviews during the academic year 2005–2006. The first
author, who during this period participated in weightlifting and the subculture of the gym (but
not bodybuilding competitions), also performed roles as training partner and spotter, attended
and photographed bodybuilding competitions, and assisted others in competition preparation
(such as body shaving and applying tanning products).
Despite the small sample size and thus exploratory nature of our research, we argue that two
factors help strengthen the robustness of our findings. First, a certain level of trust between
researcher and participant was essential to procuring the depth and authenticity of our interview
and observational data, because female bodybuilders, like members of other relatively uninves-
tigated subcultures, are often hesitant to be subjects of research by outsiders. However, because
of our status as subcultural insiders, we were viewed as legitimate members, which ‘‘provided a
unique opportunity to explore the transposition of researcher and researched, self and other’’
(Bolin 1992:379). This helped foster trust and openness on the part of the interviewees, where
otherwise, they may have been more suspicious of our intentions.
Second, although we concentrate on a specific set of themes from our data in this article and
therefore do not discuss the entirety of our findings, all of the themes we found correlate closely
with the findings of other ethnographic or interview-based studies of female bodybuilders (Bolin
1992; Boyle 2005; Grogan et al. 2004; Heywood 1998; Lowe 1998; McGrath and Chananie-Hill
2009; Roussel et al. 2010; Wesely 2001) as well as with themes from research on similar groups
of female athletes, such as powerlifters (Brace-Govan 2004), light to moderate lifters (Dworkin
2001), soccer players (George 2005), aerobicizers (Markula 1995), rugby players (Broad 2001),
and elite college athletes (Blinde and Taub 1992; Krane et al. 2004). Thus, the contribution of
this article is not so much that the data we found are new, but that we theoretically framed and
interpreted them in a novel way using Heckert and Heckert’s (2002) typology of deviance.
Interviews were audio-taped and transcribed verbatim and direct quotes are used to support
the analysis. Interview lengths varied from 45–90 minutes, and took place in various public set-
tings such as the recreation center and a local coffeehouse. Institutional Review Board (IRB)
approval was obtained prior to the data-gathering, all interviewees and informal contacts were
informed of our status as researchers, and informants were guaranteed confidentiality. All names
are pseudonyms, chosen by the researchers. The ten interviewees’ ages ranged from 21 to 37,
and all engaged in bodybuilding at an amateur level from a few weeks to eight years. All were
undergraduate or graduate students at the time. Seven women identified as white, one as African
American, one as Ghanaian, although she spent time in Canada before attending college in
America, and one as Palestinian, although she was born and raised in Kuwait. Nine women
identified as heterosexual, and one as bisexual, although she had a male partner at the time of
the interview. None were married, but seven women were involved in a steady heterosexual
relationship. The women became involved in bodybuilding for various reasons, including weight
FEMALE BODYBUILDERS AND DEVIANCE 817
loss, strength gain, long-term interest in the sport, and encouragement from others. Seven
women identified as ‘‘athletes’’ and have been involved in additional sports ranging from
cheerleading to rugby. Two women previously participated in beauty pageants, and two are
former gymnasts.
Using a semi-structured interview schedule, we asked the interviewees questions designed to
elicit narratives regarding their pre-competition diet and supplement practices, post-competition
and off-season eating patterns, and their work-out and exercise practices. In addition, we encour-
aged them to discuss how others perceive them and react to them as female bodybuilders, what
kinds of support they receive from family, friends, and significant others related to their appear-
ance, diet, and exercise routines, and how they experience others’ reactions to their bodybuilding
practices and lifestyle.
We began our analysis using Ragin’s (1994:47) insight that qualitative research is a process
of ‘‘retroduction,’’ or the interplay of induction and deduction. This involves a ‘‘spiraling
research approach’’ that is fluid and changeable, which is subject to revision and refinement dur-
ing the research process (Berg 2004:20). After recording and transcribing the interviews, we per-
formed an initial coding of the data, approaching the task with a set of sensitizing concepts based
on literature on bodybuilding and on deviance. These include normative and reactive definitions
of deviance (Scarpitti and McFarlane 1975), labeling and interactionist theories of deviance
(Becker 1973), positive deviance (Dodge 1985), female muscle as deviant (Shilling and Bunsell
2009), and especially Heckert and Heckert’s (2002) typology of deviance. We identified recur-
ring themes or patterns in the data based on our version of their typology, thereby reducing the
data into manageable ‘‘categories of evidence’’ (Ragin 1994:68), which represented a combi-
nation of interviewees’ lived experience and our theoretical and conceptual approach.
FINDINGS
In our interviews, three main discourse topics emerged: body=appearance, diet, and workout routines. Participants tended to focus on these three areas when relating their accounts of how
others—strangers, family, friends, and sexual partners—reacted to their participation in body- building and their changing bodies. Therefore, our application of Heckert and Heckert’s
(2002) deviance typology centers on these discourses. Although made discrete in our analysis,
interviewees’ accounts did not necessarily fit neatly into categories; rather, we utilized them as
heuristic devices to illustrate ‘‘ideal types’’ in the typology.
Negative Deviance (Counternormative, Negative Reactions)
Heckert and Heckert (2002:451) define negative deviance as ‘‘behaviors that involve under-
conformity or nonconformity to normative expectations and negative [societal] evaluations.’’
For our interviewees, negative deviance is mainly about certain somatic appearances caused
by specific dieting and exercise practices. For example, previous literature documents female
bodybuilders’ increased muscle size and striation, loss of breast tissue, effects of steroid use,
and other ‘‘masculinizing’’ appearances that result from training as counternormative and there-
fore negatively deviant to most mainstream audiences in Western societies (Boyle 2005; Grogan
et al. 2004; Wesely 2001). Our participants’ narratives echoed these findings through their
818 R. A. CHANANIE-HILL ET AL.
accounts of non-builders’ derogatory reactions to their changing and shifting bodies. Although
strangers rarely directed overt negative comments toward our interviewees in face-to-face inter-
action, they reported receiving non-verbal gestures they perceived as negative and judgmental.
For example:
I get a lot of stares. People I think are scared of me. So I see people look at me and you know some-
times stare at me but I never actually had someone come up to me or say to someone else ‘‘she looks
like she has too much muscle.’’ I think they may be afraid to approach me. . . . Usually I get people who say ‘‘wow you look great do you work out?’’ In which case I want to say ‘‘no I just kind of
walk around the gym.’’ I mean come on of course I work out. I have been fortunate though because
no one has made any negative comments to me—maybe they are just too scared to say it [laughs]. (Carla)
Carla’s narrative represents interviewees’ perceptions of typical mainstream audience responses
to women building visibly bulky or striated muscle, although such reactions tended to increase in
frequency and intensity in situations where the bodybuilder was prepping for a competition, and
in settings where her muscles were highly visible (e.g., while working out) rather than hidden or
minimized by clothing (e.g., in cold weather). Builders concentrated on losing fat and enhancing
muscular bulk and striation during the intense weeks before a competition, and this was usually
when the most blatant negative reactions occurred:
I was doing bicep curls one day and there were two girls behind me and I was at the cables and
I could hear them saying that is ‘‘too much muscle.’’ This was like about four weeks from the
competition so I was pretty cut at the time. (Rachel)
Still, it was relatively uncommon for our participants to be subjected to overt verbal negativity
from strangers, which may have been partially due to geosocial factors such as the Midwest’s
reputation for outward politeness, or the focus on athletics in a university setting. Also, all of
the women we interviewed competed at amateur levels and all but one did not take steroids,
so all were well aware of social disapproval and sometimes themselves expressed disgust of
overly muscular women at the pinnacle of the bodybuilding sport. Only one of our participants’
bodies was developed to the point of elite level competition (Bev), and she received many more
negative comments than the others (even from other interviewees), and those were often centered
on her rumored steroid use (which she neither confirms nor denies). Further, our participants
were somewhat insulated from widespread media publicity, unlike elite level, professional body-
builders. Thus, the reactions they reported were primarily face-to-face, and since most were not
muscularly developed to their potential, the aforementioned situational factors may have reduced
their chances of receiving the virulent, nasty comments from strangers that are so prevalent in
other settings, such as anonymized online discussions (Shilling and Bunsell 2009).
Participants were much more likely to experience direct gendered policing from people they
knew, such as family, friends, or intimate partners:
I guess it is in the appearance. If you are a bodybuilder it’s like you have stigma attached. I have
heard this a few times—‘‘why are you lifting weights? You are going to look like you are guy or something’’. . . ’cause I already look boyish I have been told that already so . . . I have been told that all my life. I am a tomboy. I was the first child of my father and he wanted a son. (Kendra)
FEMALE BODYBUILDERS AND DEVIANCE 819
Kendra’s remarks highlight the mixed messages many gender nonconformists received from their
families and friends. While her athletic father encouraged her to be ‘‘tomboyish,’’ her friends and
other family members tried to keep her within traditional bounds of femininity. Kendra’s
interpretation was that to them, lifting weights would only enhance her already boyish appear-
ance, and so they expressed ‘‘worry and concern’’ about her participation in bodybuilding.
According to participants, men had varying reactions to their female intimate partners who
were bodybuilders. Some enjoyed female muscularity (as we discuss later), and some were com-
pletely against it and threatened to leave or did leave the relationship because of it. However,
most were supportive at first, though their support faded to lukewarm when their partners con-
tinued to increase muscular bulk and hardness. Indeed, several participants with current or past
non-bodybuilding male partners told us that they received some support for their endeavors, but
often only to a point:
My boyfriend is very supportive except for when I get looking and feeling more like a guy and less
like a girl, and then he is like ‘‘it’s okay if you don’t do your sit ups tonight I won’t mind.’’ He is like
‘‘sometimes you need to cool it a little bit.’’ (Carla)
Comments such as these reflect heteronormative ideas about what an ideal female body should
look like and feel like (to touch), as well as demarcating a boundary between how much muscularity on a woman is acceptable and when she crosses a line into negative deviance. Such
a boundary is not static or set—it differs by audience and situation, although there is sufficient evidence indicating the empirical presence of a set of situational boundaries between female
normality and deviance that is based on cultural gender norms (e.g., Blinde and Taub 1992;
Schur 1983). According to our interviewees, men tended to communicate distaste or intimidation
when their female partners looked or acted stronger than the men perceived themselves to be, or
when the women lost breast tissue or stopped menstruating due to intense workouts. Participants
also claimed that parents and grandparents were cautiously supportive of their bodybuilding
activities, although they expressed concern (sometimes vehemently) that their (grand)daughters
would become too muscular and thus be ostracized by friends or unattractive to heterosexual
male partners.
Along these lines, audiences’ negative reactions to participants’ changing bodies were
not always clear-cut. As Rachel’s narrative illustrates, there were often ambiguities in people’s
reactions to female muscle, which puzzled her:
Well it is weird the same person can say to me something negative and positive all in the same
sentence—because they say ‘‘oh you are one of the strongest women I think I have ever seen’’ and then right after that they say ‘‘remind me never to piss you off.’’ It’s like they think I am going
to beat them up or something . . . they perceive me as violent like if they made me mad I would hit them . . . and I am so not that type of person. . . . Yeah, it seems like I got that comment more often, so often I couldn’t believe it, when I was really close to the contest I was really cut and people really
notice and people would say ‘‘you are really strong and you look really good’’ and then they would
immediately say something like ‘‘I hope you are never mad at me.’’ (Rachel)
Indeed, our data indicate that such mixed reactions combine elements of both positive and nega-
tive deviance. Participants reported that while some audiences admired or envied strong women
820 R. A. CHANANIE-HILL ET AL.
and complimented their musculature, these same audiences often expressed fear or intimidation,
reflecting cultural assumptions of violence as equated with somatic strength and size. Muscular
men sometimes received similar responses, as we observed through our participant observation,
although when the muscle was on a female body, it added an element of counternormative
gender deviance into the mix.
We argue that such ambiguity lends support to the call for studies of deviance to be more
nuanced and include positive as well as negative audience reactions, particularly since body-
building involves conformity as well as nonconformity to social norms (Ewald and Jiobu
1985). Indeed, according to our participants, non-builders were just as likely to praise female
bodybuilders for their lean and toned appearance as they were to disparage their bulky muscu-
lature. This combination of praise and disapproval supports current Western cultural norms that
idealize a leaned and toned female body through exercise and diet while simultaneously policing
the bounds of acceptable femininity (Choi 2003).
Positive Deviance (Pronormative, Positive Reactions)
According to Heckert and Heckert (2002:451), positive deviance is ‘‘overconformity [to social
norms] that is positively evaluated.’’ Full-bore approval of female bodybuilders by mainstream
audiences tends to be centered on their normative loss of body fat, toned muscles, dieting,
exercising, and being physically fit, rather than gaining muscular bulk (Heywood 1996). As
Dworkin (2001) finds, some visible muscle on a woman’s body is acceptable, even desirable,
but too much leads away from the pronormative, ideal female form. Just exactly where the line
is between enough and too much muscle is hard to say. The ‘‘line’’ varies by observer, setting,
context, and individual body development. Nevertheless, the women we interviewed, most of
whom were just entering the sport of bodybuilding, enjoyed significant approval for conform-
ing to cultural norms of femininity through zealous diet and exercise, before social reactions to
their changing bodies and behaviors turned negative or ambiguous when their practices or
appearances became too extreme. In other words, unadulterated positive reactions were
especially strong in situations when builders were new to the sport—after about 8–12 weeks of intensive lifting and cardio—which is when most bodies started to show clearly visible differences:
Friends at the gym would be like ‘‘wow [Brittney] you can see the weight coming off.’’ They would
make comments about seeing the striation in my chest and how I was looking better, toned, muscular
or something. They could see a difference. (Brittney)
As Brittney’s account illustrates, newer bodybuilders were the most likely to receive accolades
from mainstream (non-subcultural) others. As our participants told us, when they lost fat and
began to tone up, even mere acquaintances felt they had the right to comment, whereas they
tended to be more hesitant when remarking on culturally contentious bodily changes (i.e., rapid
increases in muscle bulk or gaining post-competition weight). Indeed, there are few accomplish-
ments in life women can attain that garner more enthusiasm and praise than losing weight and
toning up their bodies. As Bordo (1990:94–95, emphasis hers) points out, ‘‘the firm, developed
body has become a symbol of correct attitude; it means that one ‘cares’ about oneself and how
FEMALE BODYBUILDERS AND DEVIANCE 821
one appears to others suggesting willpower, energy, control over infantile impulse, the ability to
‘make something’ of oneself.’’ Thus, ignoring the strong pronormative elements of bodybuild-
ing that coincide with ardently positive though contextually limited social support simply fails to
depict the complex empirical reality of female bodybuilders’ experiences.
In short, friends, family, and significant others often expressed encouragement, delight, or
envy regarding the bodybuilder’s changing physique, especially in the early phases of partici-
pation. As Elaine related after her first competition, her friends ‘‘were like ‘holy shit’ when they
saw [her] on stage. They thought [she] looked good.’’ Additionally, builders whose families
were into physical fitness and sport were most likely to express continuous approval, even if
they were not part of the bodybuilding subculture themselves:
Yeah, my family is very supportive. My father um whatever I decide to do if I decided to be in show
after show after show he would be there. He would be there for every single one. If I decided to stop
and decided to race he would be there for those. He has been very supportive in the decisions I have
made in the fitness industry just as long as they are healthy and smart decisions. (Kelly)
Kelly’s father, who was also an athlete, provided conditional support so long as she made what
he perceived were ‘‘healthy’’ decisions. Like Kelly, several of our interviewees had family
members who worked out and dieted regularly and=or participated in sports. According to our interviewees, these folks tended to view bodybuilding as simply another way of practicing
a healthy, fit lifestyle, although the approval was likely to be withdrawn if the bodybuilder
engaged in practices deemed unhealthy or deviant.
Participants reported that it was not uncommon for family members, friends, or romantic part-
ners to join interviewees in diet or exercise routines in order to be more supportive or because
observing the changes in the bodybuilder motivated them to lose weight or become more phy-
sically fit. For example:
My mom was very supportive and she was there for me when I fell off the [diet] wagon she was like
‘‘don’t worry you look great. Finish it you will be fine.’’ She was so happy about this and it got her
motivated for her to lose weight too. So she asked for help to put herself on a diet. I gave her a diet
but nothing like what we were on. I gave her a diet where she could have her food and desert but just
little bit smaller amounts of it and she is doing great on it. (Cathy)
Cathy’s mom’s reaction demonstrates that she likely viewed her daughter’s activity as pronor-
mative, and even if a bit extreme, still perfectly acceptable. Encouraging her daughter to con-
tinue the diet and finish training for the competition showed her approval. This is significant
to our identification of these types of reactions as positive deviance, because the typical training
diet for bodybuilders is, by most accounts, much stricter than ‘‘regular’’ diets for weight loss
purposes, and thus can be read as overconformity to current social norms valorizing slim, toned,
fit female bodies. Because the typical bodybuilding pre-competition training diet has two con-
flicting goals—to gain muscle bulk and to lose fat—the foods they can eat are restricted to very high protein, very low or no carbohydrates or fats, and no sugars or salts. This type of extreme
diet can lead to health problems such as cycles of binging, anorexic behaviors, severe mood
swings, exhaustion, or dehydration if not managed correctly (Bolin 1992; Heywood 1996;
Marzano-Parisoli 2001).
822 R. A. CHANANIE-HILL ET AL.
Thus, bodybuilders’ extreme dieting behaviors and accounts of audience reactions to them
provide compelling evidence supporting the complexity of deviance, as well as the importance
of studying cultural conformity and not just non-conformity (Ben-Yehuda 1990). In any case,
the aforementioned difficulties and risks of the bodybuilder’s diet are why Cathy chose to
modify it for her mother to try—because she knew the ‘‘real’’ diet might be dangerous.
Deviance Admiration (Counternormative, Positive Reactions)
Deviance admiration is ‘‘underconformity or nonconformity [to social norms] that is positively
evaluated’’ (Heckert and Heckert 2002:451). At this point, we think it is important to reiterate
that the boundaries or lines separating the four types of deviance in the model are not meant to
be mutually exclusive; thus, they are best thought of as ideal types, rather than distinct, fixed
categories. For example, some scholars argue that limited female muscle is enjoying growing
cultural acceptance, which means it is becoming pronormative (Bordo 1990; Inness 2004;
Markula 1995). Still, when audiences define a certain amount of bulk as ‘‘too much muscle’’
on a woman’s body, negative reactions ensue that indicate the presence of counternormative
gender deviance (Krane et al. 2004). Thus, while most mainstream audiences approve of toned
muscles on women, they draw a line at some point when they perceive female muscle as too big
or too much. On the other hand, others admire, desire, or valorize well-developed muscle on the
female body—in some cases, the bigger and harder the better (Richardson 2008). It is this latter reaction that we argue best represents deviance admiration. In short, audiences may interpret the
same muscle as pronormative, counternormative, or admirably deviant.
Indeed, some audiences, such as fellow bodybuilders and bodybuilding fans, clearly admire
visible, well-developed muscle on female physiques. According to our participants, who ident-
ified mainly as heterosexual, male sexual partners were the ones who typically expressed
deviance admiration, occasionally to extremes:
I have dated someone who thought it was wonderful you know . . . there are guys who really like it you know they think it is awesome almost to the point of too much. Like I got the idea that maybe
they would want me to stay like that and not like me as much if I was not cut the whole year. They
put so much emphasis on how I looked. . . . I had a feeling that maybe they wouldn’t think that I looked good anymore when I put the weight back on. (Rachel)
While to us this is a fairly clear example of deviance admiration, we also find it interesting to
note that such admiration puts pressure on female bodybuilders to maintain a hard, lean, mus-
cular body year-round, in much the same manner as men. But unless the athlete maintains strict
diet and exercise routines both on- and off-season, which most of our interviewees did not, their
bodies inevitably lose the super-cut, extremely low-fat, lean pre-competition appearance. As
Bordo (1990:90) points out, the enemy is not always weight per se—it is flab, or ‘‘wiggly’’ flesh—although our interviewees, like Rachel, often referred to these issues in terms of weight loss and gain.
Nevertheless, the tight, toned body remains today’s mainstream ideal, so subcultural admir-
ation of the muscular female body may be read as a logical extension of the fitness craze of the
1980s, which emphasizes hard, ‘‘tightly managed’’ bodies as attractive (Bordo 1990:90). In the
FEMALE BODYBUILDERS AND DEVIANCE 823
subcultural world of bodybuilding, being thin is not desirable. For instance, Bev discussed her
opinion of one of the other interviewees who was prepping for a competition:
[She] lacks muscle in some areas of her body and she doesn’t have the experience. She needs to
lighten up on her arms and midsection and focus on her lower body. She basically has no legs
and if you go to a higher level that is national the crowd will boo you off stage and that is why.
People pay that money for a ticket to see good and muscular people not to see skinny people. (Bev)
Of all the interviewees, Bev had the most experience, and she also had the most developed
physique. At the time of our research, Bev was organizing the women’s competition at the uni-
versity, and she was also one of the judges. Her comment came from the perspective of her eight
years’ experience in bodybuilding and powerlifting. Although she was still amateur at the time,
she was starting to compete in more elite venues and seemed to be heading toward a professional
bodybuilding career. Therefore, her critiques of participants’ bodies and muscular development
illustrate the difference between mainstream and subcultural expectations. In other words, as she
argued, bodybuilding fans want and expect to see the kind of muscle that remains deviant to
most mainstream audiences.
As participants reported, others who developed their musculature, including but not limited to
bodybuilders, tended to be most supportive of or perhaps least threatened by muscular women.
For example, Carla said that her brother, who was not a bodybuilder but ‘‘works out,’’ clearly
enjoyed the effect of showing images of his sister’s muscular body to his friends: ‘‘Oh yeah, [my
brother] takes my pictures around with him and shows them to his friends and brags how his
sister can beat them up. And he is a big six-foot-three muscular guy so it is pretty neat’’ (Carla).
Although this passage expresses deviance admiration, connotations of deviant female mascu-
linity show up in more subtle ways, such as her interpretation of her brother’s pride that his sister
could ‘‘beat them up’’—referring to his male friends. The association of size with violence is nothing new, but admiration for women who can ‘‘kick ass,’’ especially in popular culture, is
a relatively recent cultural phenomenon (Inness 2004). Thus, admiring deviant (counternorma-
tive) female muscle and equating it to potential for physical harm both illustrates and reflects the
cultural turn toward depicting strong, dangerous women in media.
Further, many of our interviewees cited encouragement from other bodybuilders as a reason
they got into the sport. Most of them have worked with male bodybuilders as trainers, coaches,
spotters, or workout partners, and some have had romantic relationships with them. Participants
claimed that fellow bodybuilders, including and maybe especially men, provided nearly uncon-
ditional support of their activities and encouraged them to develop muscular physiques. For
example: ‘‘Everyone, all the guys back stage kept on saying that you should do it, you should
do the show next year. I remember these two guys . . . made a bet with me they said ‘I bet you next year you will be on stage’ ’’ (Kelly).
Other participants related similar experiences, which may reflect male bodybuilders’ desire
for and lack of fear or intimidation of muscular females. This may be because most female body- builders do not develop the muscular size of male bodybuilders, and so there are still visible sex
differences (Choi 2003). Or, it may be due to a more general admiration and appreciation of
muscular bodies in the subculture. Either way, without such subcultural encouragement and
support, along with fan adoration and positive audience feedback, it is likely that fewer of the
women would have chosen to enter the sport.
824 R. A. CHANANIE-HILL ET AL.
Deviant Conformity (Pronormative, Negative Reactions)
Deviant conformity (formerly rate-busting) refers to taking ‘‘a good thing too far’’ (Ewald and
Jiobu 1985:144) or, as ‘‘overconformity to normative expectations that is negatively evaluated’’
(Heckert and Heckert 2002:451). Although our interviewees’ narratives illustrate the other three
deviance types, we argue that they also demonstrate deviant conformity, since bodybuilding’s
basis is physical fitness, toned and strong muscles, healthy bodies, and dieting and exercise,
all of which are pronormative in Western cultures (Hughes and Coakley 1991). However, part-
icipants’ accounts show that audiences often reacted negatively when they perceived the body-
builder had crossed a line into obsessive or extreme forms of otherwise pronormative behavior.
For example, Michelle discussed her friend’s reaction, as he expressed his concerns when he
found out she was getting into bodybuilding:
We have different values of body, it is not that this is bad or worse, but he has been very supportive
of my large ass for years. I will just say that he worried that I would . . . that my self-esteem was [low] before this and I don’t think he wanted me to add this to my routine, this sort of insane ideal. It can
be insane but he didn’t want me to go to the extreme and make it an obsession. (Michelle)
Structurally, however, the sport arguably requires obsessive behavior if the bodybuilder wishes
to succeed in competition. As our interviewees (and the second author) attested, bodybuilding is
more than a sport—it is a lifestyle. Participants carefully planned all aspects of their cardio and lifting routines, scrutinized their bodies and micromanaged their diets on a daily basis. While
most audiences approved of less extreme versions of dieting and fitness, participants pointed
out that some thought that bodybuilders simply took things too far:
Like when I was around [my boyfriend] I was real moody when I was on the diet and I would try to
restrict my carbs and it would make me so upset when he would eat whatever he wanted in front of
me . . . There were times I would get so grouchy that he would throw a candy bar at me and I was like well, one candy bar wouldn’t kill me so he was like secretly sabotaging my diet. He didn’t like the
lifestyle, the dramatic change and I had no idea what I was getting myself into when I did it. (Cathy)
As Cathy asserted, even though her boyfriend was an exercise science major when he was in
college, or perhaps because of it, he disapproved of what he perceived as an extreme and ulti-
mately unhealthy pre-contest diet. When we asked her if she would participate in the next year’s
competition, she said she wanted to but her boyfriend had threatened to leave her if she did. She
said he was simply not willing to deal with her obsessive behaviors while in training.
Among themselves, bodybuilders enjoyed exchanging detailed information about and com-
paring their workout routines, diets, and supplement choices. Our interview transcripts are full
of such conversations, which reflect shared subcultural interest. Although participants related
that non-builders expressed interest in all of these aspects, they also explained that it was the
details of the diet that seemed endlessly fascinating to most mainstream people. Even as others
expressed admiration for the weight loss, toning, or muscular build and striation that resulted
from training and dieting, interviewees said that some friends or family members questioned
their sanity when they found out about all the dietary restrictions. For instance:
They thought I was crazy. I have one friend in particular who is a great cook, she uses milk and
butter for everything and she fries her food and I would go over to her house . . . you know at dinner
FEMALE BODYBUILDERS AND DEVIANCE 825
time I would only eat a salad or whatever, she used to get upset and I wouldn’t use cream in my
coffee and she would get on me for that and she thought I was crazy but she also saw the benefit.
(Rachel)
Although in our interviewees’ experience, few observers made a direct comparison to anorexia
or other eating disorders in their verbal reactions, they nevertheless clearly expressed their con-
cern or even disdain for the bodybuilder’s extreme diet. For instance, Jeanie talked about the
lack of support she received from friends and family when she was doing the pre-contest diet:
My friends thought it was cool for the most part, but once they saw what I was eating they did not
envy me at all. . . . Lots of social events have food and alcohol at them so it is hard to be around that and most people don’t understand why you can’t eat certain foods and why alcohol is not on the
diet . . . some just didn’t understand why I would choose that lifestyle. I was like always obsessed with food while I was on the diet and I found that some of my friends were not helpful or supportive
at all, they would actually be like ‘‘yeah you can eat that one time isn’t going to kill you,’’ but it just
wasn’t one time it would be like every day. And food is so much a part of everyone’s day that it is
hard to avoid and when no one else is dieting with you it makes it that much harder. Most of my
friends went to the shows though. They are always ready to help me put the weight back on right
after the show. (Jeanie)
As Jeanie’s narrative demonstrates, many people were supportive of their bodybuilding friends’
efforts in general, but stopped short when it came to the extreme diet. And, as she ironically
pointed out, friends and family were more than happy to assist in the post-competition binging
events, which can be very unhealthy for the body (Bolin 1992). Therefore, the bodybuilders’
pre-contest diet is a practice that might easily cross from positive deviance to deviant conformity
in audiences’ eyes. Jeanie’s father’s reaction upon learning what his daughter was up to sup-
ported this observation: ‘‘He thinks working out is important both cardio and lifting, but thinks
that the diet to go along with all the working out is stupid. He doesn’t understand why someone
would go through all of that just for a look’’ (Jeanie).
Jeanie’s interpretation of her father’s response highlights the differences between people who
‘‘work out’’ and bodybuilders. According to the interviewees, this sort of negative reaction was
common from people they knew who were otherwise athletic, physically fit, or were trying to
live a healthy lifestyle. Thus, we argue that the bodybuilder’s dieting practices provided a clear
example of deviant conformity, because dieting and exercise itself is pronormative, but when
done to such an extreme drew negative sanctions from non-subcultural audiences.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
Our findings demonstrated that deviance is not always a clear-cut case of counternormativity
accompanied by negative audience reactions. In terms of appearance and behavior, female body-
builders engaged in both pronormative and counternormative activities, and audiences reacted to
them sometimes positively, sometimes negatively, and commonly with some mixture of the two.
According to participants, mainstream audiences, including family, friends, and romantic part-
ners supported or even admired bodybuilders’ efforts at dieting, working out, and toning up their
bodies, but many drew the line when they perceived that these activities became too extreme or
826 R. A. CHANANIE-HILL ET AL.
when they took them too far. Based on these accounts, gendered cultural expectations of femi-
nine appearance and behavior combined with heteronormative discourses to shape audiences’
reactions to female bodybuilders, and therefore their perceptions of when builders crossed the
boundaries of normative acceptability. Thus, as participants indicated, social reactions shifted
and changed over time and across situations and contexts.
Although the location may differ by audience and situation, it is clear from our data and exist-
ing literature that such boundaries are not random; rather, cultural norms of gender, sexuality,
body size, health, and fitness pattern responses to female bodybuilders (Boyle 2005; Choi
2003; Dworkin 2001; Krane et al. 2004; Marzano-Parisoli 2001; Wesely 2001). Further, individ-
ual bodybuilders move back and forth along a continuum of deviance, which we and others
argue is fluid and changeable, even as it is culturally patterned (Ben-Yehuda 1990; Heckert
and Heckert 2002; Scarpitti and McFarlane 1975). As Becker (1973:183) points out in his recon-
sideration of labeling theory, deviance is a collective action, such that ‘‘people act with an eye to
the responses of others involved in that action.’’ In other words, researchers must theoretically
separate the deviant act from those persons who are labeled deviant. Therefore, to fully under-
stand deviance, scholars should account for the full spectrum of interactions between
rule-breakers and rule-enforcers, because ‘‘empirically, they belong to two distinct, though over-
lapping, systems of collective action’’ (Becker 1973:185). It is through such interactions that
cultural meanings and definitions of deviance shift and change. Indeed, the common themes
we identified in how our interviewees characterized the various social reactions they experienced
inform our collective understanding of conformity, nonconformity, deviance, and the shifting,
negotiated nature of social norms.
Again, where the boundary line is between pronormative and deviant behavior is unclear
when participants’ interpretations of social reactions are taken into account. However, we can
and do surmise that there are boundaries that when crossed result in negative reactions— although perhaps it would be more useful to conceptualize them in terms of mapping ‘‘deviance
areas,’’ as Scarpitti and McFarlane (1975) suggest (see Figure 1).
Figure 1 illustrates our attempt at providing a visualization of what we found in our data. A
plus sign in the first position indicates behavior or appearance that is pronormative, while a
minus sign indicates counternormative. A plus sign in the second position (after the slash) indi-
cates reports of positive audience reactions, while the minus sign indicates negative reactions
(also see Table 1). Using the three main topical foci of our data (appearance, diet, and exercise),
we placed these into spaces designed to depict deviance areas that overlap, and can shift and
change depending on audience. We chose to put the areas in these specific spots to depict the
overall relationships we found in our particular data set between deviance area and deviance
type. In this figure, we do not claim to generalize all bodybuilders’ accounts of audience reac-
tions or the actual audience reactions to them; we only intend to reflect our interviewees’ narra-
tives of their experiences as closely as we can. Since female muscle was the most often
remarked-on aspect of the female bodybuilders according to those we interviewed, and female
muscle is typically defined as counternormative, we placed the box labeled ‘‘female muscle’’ to
indicate that our interviewees reported reactions we think most often represent either negative
deviance or deviance admiration (although not always). We did the same thing with ‘‘workout
routine’’ and ‘‘pre-contest diet,’’ positioning them to reflect the most common types of audience
reaction as depicted in our data. For example, the extreme diet garnered far more frequent nega-
tive reactions than the workouts, according to our interviewees, so we placed it to extend further
FEMALE BODYBUILDERS AND DEVIANCE 827
into the area of deviant conformity. In addition, diet and exercise are in a more pronormative
direction than building extensive female muscle, so we located both of the former more toward
positive deviance and deviant conformity, both of which reflect pronormative behaviors.
In conclusion, we have provided an empirical illustration of Heckert and Heckert’s (2002)
deviance typology using female bodybuilders’ accounts of audience reactions as data. This
example adds to the growing literature addressing a broader conceptualization of deviance to
include positive social reactions and pronormative behaviors. As the complexities of our inter-
viewees’ experiences exemplify, the everyday life-worlds of those participating in deviant sub-
cultures or other deviance are complicated and cannot or should not be oversimplified using a
strictly negative, reactivist definition of deviance. While patterns exist in mainstream and sub-
cultural audiences’ reactions to deviance, they are not uniform or static. Rather, they are nego-
tiable and often manifest in contradictory ways, which highlights the need for researchers of
deviance to incorporate conformity and cultural approval into their analyses.
REFERENCES
Becker, Howard S. 1973. Outsiders: Studies in the Sociology of Deviance. New York: Free Press.
Ben-Yehuda, Nachman. 1990. ‘‘Positive and Negative Deviance: More Fuel for a Controversy.’’ Deviant Behavior 11:221–243.
Berg, Bruce L. 2004. Qualitative Research Methods for the Social Sciences (5th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.
Blinde, Elaine M. and Diane E. Taub. 1992. ‘‘Women Athletes as Falsely Accused Deviants: Managing the Lesbian
Stigma.’’ The Sociological Quarterly 33(4):521–533. Bolin, Anne. 1992. ‘‘Flex Appeal, Food, and Fat: Competitive Bodybuilding, Gender, and Diet.’’ Play & Culture
5(4):378–400.
FIGURE 1 Mapping female bodybuilding deviance areas.
828 R. A. CHANANIE-HILL ET AL.
Bordo, Susan. 1990. ‘‘Reading the Slender Body.’’ Pp. 83–112 in Body=Politics: Women and the Discourses of Science, edited by Mary Jacobus, Evelyn Fox Keller and Sally Shuttleworth. New York: Routledge.
Boyle, Lex. 2005. ‘‘Flexing the Tensions of Female Muscularity: How Female Bodybuilders Negotiate Normative
Femininity in Competitive Bodybuilding.’’ Women’s Studies Quarterly 33(1=2):134–149.
Brace-Govan, Jan. 2004. ‘‘Weighty Matters: Control of Women’s Access to Physical Strength.’’ The Sociological Review 52(4):503–531.
Broad, K. L. 2001. ‘‘The Gendered Unapologetic: Queer Resistance in Women’s Sport.’’ Sociology of Sport Journal
18:181–204.
Choi, Precilla Y. L. 2003. ‘‘Muscle Matters: Maintaining Visible Differences between Men and Women.’’ Sexualities,
Evolution & Gender 5(2):71–81.
Denham, Bryan E. 2008. ‘‘Masculinities in Hardcore Bodybuilding.’’ Men and Masculinities 11(2):234–242.
Dentler, Robert A. and Kai T. Erikson. 1959. ‘‘The Functions of Deviance in Groups.’’ Social Problems 7(2):98–107. Dodge, David L. 1985. ‘‘The Over-Negativized Conceptualization of Deviance: A Programmatic Exploration.’’ Deviant
Behavior 6:17–37.
Dworkin, Shari L. 2001. ‘‘ ‘Holding Back’: Negotiating a Glass Ceiling on Women’s Muscular Strength.’’ Sociological
Perspectives 44(3):333–350. Ewald, Keith and Robert M. Jiobu. 1985. ‘‘Explaining Positive Deviance: Becker’s Model and the Case of Runners and
Bodybuilders.’’ Sociology of Sport Journal 2:144–156.
George, Molly. 2005. ‘‘Making Sense of Muscle: The Body Experiences of Collegiate Women Athletes.’’ Sociological Inquiry 75(3):317–345.
Goode, Erich. 1991. ‘‘Positive Deviance: A Viable Concept?’’ Deviant Behavior 12(3):289–309.
Grogan, Sarah, Ruth Evans, Sam Wright, and Geoff Hunter. 2004. ‘‘Femininity and Muscularity: Accounts of Seven
Women Bodybuilders.’’ Journal of Gender Studies 13(1):49–61. Heckert, Alex and Druann Maria Heckert. 2002. ‘‘A New Typology of Deviance: Integrating Normative and Reactivist
Definitions of Deviance.’’ Deviant Behavior 23:449–479.
———. 2004. ‘‘Using an Integrated Typology of Deviance to Analyze Ten Common Norms of the Middle Class.’’
The Sociological Quarterly 45(2):209–228. Heywood, Leslie. 1996. Dedication to Hunger: The Anorexic Aesthetic in Modern Culture. Berkeley: University of
California Press.
———. 1998. Bodymakers: A Cultural Anatomy of Women’s Body Building. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers. Hughes, Robert and Jay Coakley. 1991. ‘‘Positive Deviance among Athletes: The Implications of Overconformity to the
Sport Ethic.’’ Sociology of Sport Journal 8:307–325.
Inness, Sherrie A. (ed.). 2004. Action Chicks: New Images of Tough Women in Popular Culture. New York: Palgrave.
Irwin, Katherine. 2003. ‘‘Saints and Sinners: Elite Tattoo Collectors and Tattooists as Positive and Negative Deviants.’’
Sociological Spectrum 23:27–57.
Klein, Alan M. 1986. ‘‘Pumping Irony: Crisis and Contradiction in Bodybuilding.’’ Sociology of Sport Journal 3:112–133.
Krane, Vikki, Precilla Y. L. Choi, Shannon M. Baird, Christine M. Aimar, and Kerrie J. Kauer. 2004. ‘‘Living the
Paradox: Female Athletes Negotiate Femininity and Muscularity.’’ Sex Roles 50(5=6):315–329. Lowe, Maria R. 1998. Women of Steel: Female Bodybuilders and the Struggle for Self-Definition. New York: New York
University Press.
Markula, Pirkko. 1995. ‘‘Firm but Shapely, Fit but Sexy, Strong but Thin: The Postmodern Aerobicizing Female
Bodies.’’ Sociology of Sport Journal 12(4):424–453. Marzano-Parisoli, Maria Michela. 2001. ‘‘The Contemporary Construction of a Perfect Body Image: Bodybuilding,
Exercise Addiction, and Eating Disorders.’’ Quest 53:216–230.
McGrath, Shelly A. and Ruth A. Chananie-Hill. 2009. ‘‘ ‘Big Freaky-Looking Women’: Normalizing Gender
Transgression through Bodybuilding.’’ Sociology of Sport Journal 26:235–254.
McLorg, Penelope A. and Diane E. Taub. 1987. ‘‘Anorexia Nervosa and Bulimia: The Development of Deviant
Identities.’’ Deviant Behavior 8:177–189.
Mitchell, Jean. 1987. ‘‘ ‘Going for the Burn’ and ‘Pumping Iron’: What’s Healthy about the Current Fitness Boom?’’
Pp. 156–174 in Fed Up and Hungry: Women, Oppression & Food, edited by Marilyn Lawrence. New York: Peter
Bedrick Books.
Ragin, Charles C. 1994. Constructing Social Research: The Unity and Diversity of Method. Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine
Forge Press.
FEMALE BODYBUILDERS AND DEVIANCE 829
Richardson, Niall. 2008. ‘‘Flex Rated! Female Bodybuilding: Feminist Resistance or Erotic Spectacle?’’ Journal of Gender Studies 17(4):289–301.
Roussel, Peggy, Lee F. Monaghan, Sophie Javerlhiac, and Francios LeYondre. 2010. ‘‘The Metamorphosis of Female
Bodybuilders: Judging a Paroxysmal Body?’’ International Review for the Sociology of Sport 45(1):103–109.
Sagarin, Edward. 1985. ‘‘Positive Deviance: An Oxymoron.’’ Deviant Behavior 6:169–181. Scarpitti, Frank R. and Paul T. McFarlane. 1975. Deviance: Action, Reaction, Interaction: Studies in Positive and
Negative Deviance. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Schur, Edwin M. 1983. Labeling Women Deviant: Gender, Stigma, and Social Control. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
Shilling, Chris and Tanya Bunsell. 2009. ‘‘The Female Bodybuilder as a Gender Outlaw.’’ Qualitative Research in Sport
and Exercise 1(2):141–159.
Spreitzer, Gretchen M. and Scott Sonenshein. 2004. ‘‘Toward the Construct Definition of Positive Deviance.’’ American Behavioral Scientist 47(6):828–847.
Szabo, Attila. 2010. Addiction to Exercise: A Symptom or a Disorder? Hauppauge, NY: Nova Science.
Wasielewski, Patricia. 1991. ‘‘Not Quite Normal, But Not Really Deviant: Some Notes on the Comparison of Elite
Athletes and Women Political Activists.’’ Deviant Behavior 12:81–95. Wesely, Jennifer K. 2001. ‘‘Negotiating Gender: Bodybuilding and the Natural=Unnatural Continuum.’’ Sociology of
Sport Journal 18:162–180.
West, Brad. 2003. ‘‘Synergies in Deviance: Revisiting the Positive Deviance Debate.’’ Electronic Journal of Sociology 7(4). Available at (http://www.sociology.org/content/vol7.4/west.html) (accessed khlu@mdanderson.org).
Wolfzorn, Melanie, Alex Heckert, and Druann Maria Heckert. 2006. ‘‘Positive Deviance and Social Bond Theory.’’ Free
Inquiry in Creative Sociology 34(2):107–121.
RUTH A. CHANANIE-HILL is an Assistant Professor of sociology at the University of Northern Iowa. Her current research focuses on gender, sport, and social movements. Most
recently, she has published research on female bodybuilders and women’s flat-track roller derby,
and she is currently working on projects about the movement toward diversity in higher
education, and socio-legal framings of same-sex marriage.
SHELLY A. MCGRATH is an Assistant Professor of criminal justice. Her research interests encompass two main areas. The first relates to intimate partner violence, including patterns, the
advocate experience for victims, and the availability of services for victims, especially in rural
areas. The other line of research involves comparative analyses of fear and perceived risk of
victimization at the international level, including the relationship between citizen satisfaction
with local police and perceived safety. Her most recent publications are in Sociology of Sport, Aggression and Violent Behavior, Sociological Focus, and the American Journal of Criminal Justice.
JUSTIN STOLL is a Ph.D. student in sociology at Boston University. His research interests include social movements, global health, religion, and inequality. His current research focuses
on organizational collaborations in transnational humanitarian health, and the emerging
Secularist and Atheist movement in America.
830 R. A. CHANANIE-HILL ET AL.
Copyright of Deviant Behavior is the property of Routledge and its content may not be copied or emailed to
multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users
may print, download, or email articles for individual use.