SHELDON'S BODY TYPES VS SOCIOLOGY OF BODY: REVISITING SOMATOFORM THEORY THROUGH A SOCIAL CONSTRUCTIONIST VIEW

This research paper critically examines William H. Sheldon's somatotype theory through a social constructionist lens, addressing significant gaps in its understanding within contemporary sociological frameworks. Sheldon's theory, which categorizes individuals into ectomorphs, mesomorphs, and endomorphs, has been criticized for its methodological, scientific, and conceptual limitations. Despite extensive critique, the intersection of Sheldon's biologically deterministic approach with the sociology of the body remains underexplored. This research employs a desk research methodology, utilizing content and critical analysis to integrate existing criticisms with insights from feminist theory, cultural representation, phenomenology, and Pierre Bourdieu's concepts of habitus and field. The study explores four primary areas: historical evolution of body types, commercialization and body image, the "lived body" concept, and Bourdieu’s habitus. It argues that social and political transformations throughout history have significantly influenced physical and behavioral characteristics, challenging the static nature of Sheldon's classifications. The commercialization of body image through media and advertising perpetuates narrow ideals of gender roles and sexual identities, questioning the relevance of Sheldon's somatotypes in modern consumer culture. The phenomenological perspective of the "lived body" emphasizes subjective experience and embodied consciousness, offering a more dynamic understanding of human behavior compared to Sheldon's fixed categories. Bourdieu’s habitus and field concepts highlight the embodiment of social norms and the impact of social contexts on bodily practices, contrasting sharply with Sheldon's reductionist view. The findings underscore the importance of considering historical, social, and cultural factors in understanding body types and behaviors. By bridging Sheldon's theory with contemporary sociological perspectives, this research provides a nuanced critique that highlights the limitations of biological determinism and advocates for a more comprehensive, socially informed approach to studying body image and identity. This paper contributes to the broader discourse on the sociology of the body, emphasizing the need for interdisciplinary and dynamic frameworks in examining the complex interplay between biology and social construction.