From biosociality to biosolidarity: the looping effects of finding and forming social networks for body-focused repetitive behaviours
Open accessAbstract
Anthropological accounts of biosociality reveal the importance of the social relations formed through shared biomedical conditions. In the context of body-focused repetitive behaviours (BFRBs), like compulsive hair pulling (trichotillomania) and skin picking (dermatillomania), biosociality moves people from isolation towards community. After diagnosis, the powerful moment of discovering 'you are not alone' can lead to immense personal transformations, demonstrating the 'looping effects' of diagnosis and biosociality. Yet, biosocial groups do not simply exist, and must first be formed and found and their sustainability requires ongoing work and care from biosocial actors themselves. Biosociality also means different things to different people, often requiring a negotiation between secrecy and disclosure. This article acknowledges the role of stigma in biosociality, differentiating between private and public biosocial experiences. It argues that through biosociality come acts of biosolidarity, where advocacy can improve the visibility and recognition of illness groups. The circular looping effects of biosociality and biosolidarity demonstrate the way that community activism and biosociality reproduce one another. Through reflections from the anthropologist, biosolidarity is considered as a methodological tool that can help scholars to navigate the boundaries between relatedness, sociality and advocacy in the field and beyond.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Community can develop into activism (biosolidarity) such that biomedical labels can be a necessary ingredient of radical action.
“She stresses that community can develop into activism (which she dubs ‘biosolidarity’) such that biomedical labels can be a necessary ingredient of radical action.”
From Is it Still Ok to be Ok? Mental Health Labels as a Campus Technology (2023) · cites this paper as Bradley 2021
Individuals who come together to actively create a biosocial community are united by, and motivated by, mental health labels.
“Anthropologist Bridget Bradley notes that individuals who come together to actively create a biosocial community, are united by, and motivated by, mental health labels (Bradley 2021).”
From Is it Still Ok to be Ok? Mental Health Labels as a Campus Technology (2023) · cites this paper as Bradley 2021
Cites
Woods, D. W., Flessner, C. A., Franklin, M. E., Keuthen, N. J., Goodwin, R. D., Stein, D. J., Walther, M. R., & Trichotillomania Learning Center-Scientific Advisory Board (2006) · The Journal of Clinical Psychiatry · doi:10.4088/jcp.v67n1207 · Cited by 317 · cited 2× · see citing works
“usually display limited knowledge of the conditions (Woods et al. 2006; Tucker et al. 2011).”
BackgroundTucker, B. T. P., Woods, D. W., Flessner, C. A., Franklin, S. A., & Franklin, M. E. (2011) · Journal of Anxiety Disorders · doi:10.1016/j.janxdis.2010.08.007 · Cited by 187 · see citing works
Shame in the obsessive compulsive related disorders: A conceptual review
Weingarden, H., & Renshaw, K. D. (2015) · Journal of Affective Disorders · doi:10.1016/j.jad.2014.09.010 · Cited by 171 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Is it Still Ok to be Ok? Mental Health Labels as a Campus Technology
Armstrong, N., Beswick, L., & Vega, M. O. (2023) · Culture, Medicine, and Psychiatry · doi:10.1007/s11013-023-09819-3 · Cited by 13 · see citing works
- Authors
- Bradley, B.
- Affiliations
- University of St Andrews (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Bradley, Bridget
- Venue
- Anthropology & Medicine
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2021-02-22
- Volume
- 28
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 543-557
- ISSN
- 1364-8470 (ISSN-L)
- 1469-2910
- OpenAlex
- W3129723644
- Cited by
- 48
- References
- 3
- Citations by year
- 2026: 10 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 15 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 4
- FWCI
- 4.44
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- public-domain
- creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ (vor)
- Locations
- Anthropology and Medicine (publishedVersion, public-domain)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- St Andrews Research Repository (St Andrews Research Repository) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- Funders
- Edinburgh University
- Scottish Funding Council (SFC/AN/08/020)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Obsessive-Compulsive Spectrum Disorders
- Social Sciences › Anthropology › Anthropological Studies and Insights
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychology and Mental Health
- Keywords
- biosociality, trichotillomania, dermatillomania, social networks, stigma, advocacy, community activism, illness experience
- MeSH terms
- Humans, Trichotillomania, Anthropology, Medical, Social Networking
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review