![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Why I don't like the word "wholesome"
There are a bunch of ways the word "wholesome" is used but I have yet to encounter one that doesn't infuriate me.
I'm talking about how the word is used on the English speaking internet and in English speaking Western countries, notably Australia and the United States. There's some variation, but I feel like the usage is roughly similar.
If you google "wholesome definition" you get two definitions:
1)conducive to or suggestive of good health and physical well-being.
2)conducive to or characterised by moral well-being.
I'm going to add a third I've seen around:
3)conducive to or suggestive of good mental health and emotional well-being.
So, looking at the three together we have a "sick=immoral" implication which I am WEIRDLY ENOUGH not a fan of. But even if we take the definitions separately, despite being fine in principle they are used VERY BADLY in practice.
First we have (1): "conducive to or suggestive of good health and physical well-being". That's basically the same as "healthy", and a lot of the terrible ways "wholesome" is used about physical health apply just as much to "healthy": the implication that being sick yourself is equivalent to being bad for other people's health, the idea that there's a single universal measure of how good something is for EVERYONE, classist/fatphobic etc ideas about what behaviours are good for people, etc. And a lot of this is unavoidable in discussions of health, because society's ideas about health are terrible.
But with "healthy" there's at least some association with, like, established medical guidelines for what tends to be good for most people's health. With "wholesome" there's a weird mix of alternative medicine and conservative nostalgia for the past, with an emphasis on things being clean and natural and aesthetically pleasing rather than, you know, good for you. Pharmaceuticals and heavily processed foods can sometimes be healthy, but they aren't ever wholesome.
So as a chronically ill person with a need for psych meds and many food intolerances (including to "wholesome" things like raw vegetables), I have some VERY BAD ASSOCIATIONS with the term.
Then there's (2): "conducive to or characterised by moral well-being". This has a VERY dark history. For a start, English speaking societies have tended to have some VERY BAD ideas about what counts as "moral". But "wholesome" in particular has historically been connected to an especially conservative and repressive form of Christian moralising: one that promotes sexism, racism, homophobia, and sexual repression. By this definition, a "wholesome" person is morally good, innocent, passive, childlike, sexless, white(*), straight, Christian, and old-fashioned.
Now there's a new modern upsurge in the use of "wholesome", without the direct Christian/bigoted associations. By this definition, a "wholesome" person is morally good, innocent, passive, childlike, and sexless. Here "morally good" depends on the speaker, and may mean being openly queer, promoting ethnic diversity etc.
But...this new definition sure looks a lot like the old one. It has a bunch of very strong negative associations for me (not helped by the physical health stuff I mentioned above) and also is bad on it's own merits: there's nothing inherently wrong with something being morally good, innocent, passive, childlike, and sexless. But implying that those properties are related is terrible. Moral goodness is not in any way connected to any of those other properties, and implying that it is supports the repressive, conservative ideology that spawned those connections in the first place. Because the inescapable implication is that being experienced/traumatised, active, adult, or sexual is morally wrong.
For example, I once saw a post along the lines of "When I describe Victor and Yuuri (a m/m couple) as wholesome I'm not saying they don't have sex! That would be homophobic! I'm saying their sex is an expression of their love and only happened once their romantic relationship was stable." THIS IS STILL BAD. And it very much ties into a broader pattern I've seen of supposedly progressive people being deeply uncomfortable with non-romantic sex, or anyone being motivated by sexual desire as something separate to love even within a romantic relationship.
Also, the old conservative definition is still very much in use, and there's no clear usage line between the two. Most "wholesome" content shared online is stuff like cute kitten pictures that everyone likes, and that everyone who uses the term "wholesome" would describe that way, regardless of their broader moral worldview. So the idea that the conservative definition of "wholesome" is being reclaimed/subverted rings pretty hollow to me, especially given that saying "sexless and childlike"="moral" isn't subverting jack.
Finally there's (3): "conducive to or suggestive of good mental health and emotional well-being".
For example the Know your meme page on "wholesome memes" describes them as containing "supportive, caring sentiments". Which is fine in principle I guess? But a lot of this sort of "wholesome" content has the same problem as definition (1): the idea that there's a single universal measure of how good something is for EVERYONE, and an emphasis on things being clean and natural and aesthetically pleasing rather than actually good for you.
And then there's the broader context. People don't tend to overtly blur (1) and (2) (though there's definitely some subtextual blurring), but they blur (2) and (3) ALL the time. That which is morally good, innocent, passive, childlike, and sexless is also good for everyone's mental health. And by extension, not only is it morally wrong to be experienced/traumatised, active, adult, or sexual, it's also bad for your own mental health, and that of the people around you.
THAT IS NOT A GREAT THING TO BE IMPLYING. MENTALLY ILL PEOPLE DO NOT NEED THIS. NOBODY NEEDS THIS.
My introduction to the Wholesome memes twitter account was an image of a shirt saying something about people with Down's Syndrome being perfect innocent angels. Which is just...such a perfect example on so many levels.
So yeah. I love me some fresh mangoes and cute pictures of kittens and lesbian weddings, I'm not saying the sort of thing that gets called wholesome is bad. But the term itself is, well. Pretty unwholesome :P
I am open to being persuaded, because I know a "40ish person rants about how word popular with young people is problematic" is not generally on the right side of history. But I've been paying attention to the word's usage for a while and it seems pretty universally bad to me. I do understand the need for a word for, say, "generally inoffensive content that will probably make you feel happy". But I think "wholesome" is unsalvageable. Use "soothing", or something.
(*)I think? I know there's Race Stuff. Anyway, it's not super relevant to my broader point.
I'm talking about how the word is used on the English speaking internet and in English speaking Western countries, notably Australia and the United States. There's some variation, but I feel like the usage is roughly similar.
If you google "wholesome definition" you get two definitions:
1)conducive to or suggestive of good health and physical well-being.
2)conducive to or characterised by moral well-being.
I'm going to add a third I've seen around:
3)conducive to or suggestive of good mental health and emotional well-being.
So, looking at the three together we have a "sick=immoral" implication which I am WEIRDLY ENOUGH not a fan of. But even if we take the definitions separately, despite being fine in principle they are used VERY BADLY in practice.
First we have (1): "conducive to or suggestive of good health and physical well-being". That's basically the same as "healthy", and a lot of the terrible ways "wholesome" is used about physical health apply just as much to "healthy": the implication that being sick yourself is equivalent to being bad for other people's health, the idea that there's a single universal measure of how good something is for EVERYONE, classist/fatphobic etc ideas about what behaviours are good for people, etc. And a lot of this is unavoidable in discussions of health, because society's ideas about health are terrible.
But with "healthy" there's at least some association with, like, established medical guidelines for what tends to be good for most people's health. With "wholesome" there's a weird mix of alternative medicine and conservative nostalgia for the past, with an emphasis on things being clean and natural and aesthetically pleasing rather than, you know, good for you. Pharmaceuticals and heavily processed foods can sometimes be healthy, but they aren't ever wholesome.
So as a chronically ill person with a need for psych meds and many food intolerances (including to "wholesome" things like raw vegetables), I have some VERY BAD ASSOCIATIONS with the term.
Then there's (2): "conducive to or characterised by moral well-being". This has a VERY dark history. For a start, English speaking societies have tended to have some VERY BAD ideas about what counts as "moral". But "wholesome" in particular has historically been connected to an especially conservative and repressive form of Christian moralising: one that promotes sexism, racism, homophobia, and sexual repression. By this definition, a "wholesome" person is morally good, innocent, passive, childlike, sexless, white(*), straight, Christian, and old-fashioned.
Now there's a new modern upsurge in the use of "wholesome", without the direct Christian/bigoted associations. By this definition, a "wholesome" person is morally good, innocent, passive, childlike, and sexless. Here "morally good" depends on the speaker, and may mean being openly queer, promoting ethnic diversity etc.
But...this new definition sure looks a lot like the old one. It has a bunch of very strong negative associations for me (not helped by the physical health stuff I mentioned above) and also is bad on it's own merits: there's nothing inherently wrong with something being morally good, innocent, passive, childlike, and sexless. But implying that those properties are related is terrible. Moral goodness is not in any way connected to any of those other properties, and implying that it is supports the repressive, conservative ideology that spawned those connections in the first place. Because the inescapable implication is that being experienced/traumatised, active, adult, or sexual is morally wrong.
For example, I once saw a post along the lines of "When I describe Victor and Yuuri (a m/m couple) as wholesome I'm not saying they don't have sex! That would be homophobic! I'm saying their sex is an expression of their love and only happened once their romantic relationship was stable." THIS IS STILL BAD. And it very much ties into a broader pattern I've seen of supposedly progressive people being deeply uncomfortable with non-romantic sex, or anyone being motivated by sexual desire as something separate to love even within a romantic relationship.
Also, the old conservative definition is still very much in use, and there's no clear usage line between the two. Most "wholesome" content shared online is stuff like cute kitten pictures that everyone likes, and that everyone who uses the term "wholesome" would describe that way, regardless of their broader moral worldview. So the idea that the conservative definition of "wholesome" is being reclaimed/subverted rings pretty hollow to me, especially given that saying "sexless and childlike"="moral" isn't subverting jack.
Finally there's (3): "conducive to or suggestive of good mental health and emotional well-being".
For example the Know your meme page on "wholesome memes" describes them as containing "supportive, caring sentiments". Which is fine in principle I guess? But a lot of this sort of "wholesome" content has the same problem as definition (1): the idea that there's a single universal measure of how good something is for EVERYONE, and an emphasis on things being clean and natural and aesthetically pleasing rather than actually good for you.
And then there's the broader context. People don't tend to overtly blur (1) and (2) (though there's definitely some subtextual blurring), but they blur (2) and (3) ALL the time. That which is morally good, innocent, passive, childlike, and sexless is also good for everyone's mental health. And by extension, not only is it morally wrong to be experienced/traumatised, active, adult, or sexual, it's also bad for your own mental health, and that of the people around you.
THAT IS NOT A GREAT THING TO BE IMPLYING. MENTALLY ILL PEOPLE DO NOT NEED THIS. NOBODY NEEDS THIS.
My introduction to the Wholesome memes twitter account was an image of a shirt saying something about people with Down's Syndrome being perfect innocent angels. Which is just...such a perfect example on so many levels.
So yeah. I love me some fresh mangoes and cute pictures of kittens and lesbian weddings, I'm not saying the sort of thing that gets called wholesome is bad. But the term itself is, well. Pretty unwholesome :P
I am open to being persuaded, because I know a "40ish person rants about how word popular with young people is problematic" is not generally on the right side of history. But I've been paying attention to the word's usage for a while and it seems pretty universally bad to me. I do understand the need for a word for, say, "generally inoffensive content that will probably make you feel happy". But I think "wholesome" is unsalvageable. Use "soothing", or something.
(*)I think? I know there's Race Stuff. Anyway, it's not super relevant to my broader point.
no subject
The sort of person who gets described in the media as "wholesome" is Reese Witherspoon in a 1950s style sundress, not a woman with short brighly-coloured dyed hair with tattoos who plays roller derby.
no subject
Yes, very true!
no subject
no subject
no subject
Ha, true :/
no subject
Yeah, it does depend on context, though I feel like there's a more subtle but still non-negligible limit on what gender presentations are described as "wholesome" even by people intending to use it in a queer-positive way.
no subject
no subject
Yes, same! I mean not always, but sometimes, and when they do the implication that they are Good For Me makes it much worse, just like people pushing "wholesome" food on me that would make me sick is much more frustrating than someone going "eat this it's delicious".
no subject
no subject
Ha! Ok, I have not encountered that usage, and have no objection to it. Especially since I imagine most people using "wholesome" in ways I find annoying would NOT BE HAPPY for it to be blurred with a kink term :)
no subject
no subject
YES. PURE AND SOFT. I HATES THEM. But I am also fuzzier on their meanings, while "wholesome" I felt more confident on.
no subject
no subject
Thank you!