{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.023005384238864415, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0004894762604013706, 'mean_word_length': 5.8133333333333335, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 1, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Commentary on “Levels of Embodiment: A Husserlian Analysis of Gender and the Development of Eating Disorders”

Rodemeyer has made an important contribution to phenomenological work on gender and the development of eating disorders (EDs). Drawing upon Husserl’s analysis of “levels of constitution” – the subjective processes by which phenomena are made present as objects of experience – she convincingly argues that these levels not only help us get a better grip on the development and experience of EDs generally, but also refine our methods of diagnosis and treatment. Additionally, Rodemeyer develops a clear account of how these different levels of constitution systematically interrelate. Her chapter, therefore, has important phenomenological, practical, and exegetical significance. A virtue of Rodemeyer’s account is that it develops a pluralist framework that can accommodate individual differences in how EDs develop and acquire their distinctive character. Current discussions sometimes lack this ecumenical sensitivity. Instead, they place excessive emphasis on a specific cause or explanation: for example, biological factors such as irregular hormone function or genetics; psychological factors such as negative body image, poor self-esteem, or an obsessive desire for thinness; or environmental factors such as sexual abuse or family history of disordered eating. As a result, these narrow approaches oversimplify the complexity and multidimensional character of EDs. Additionally, they tend to adopt a third-person perspective that overlooks the lived experience of these disorders. However, with her multilevel Husserlian-inspired analysis, Rodemeyer gives us a powerful conceptual framework that can accommodate these different dimensions while remaining sensitive to their distinct phenomenological features. In what follows, we discuss two themes that we suggest will help enrich Rodemeyer’s analysis while remaining faithful to her pluralist outlook. Specifically, we are concerned with highlighting the (1) agentive and