“Recovery warriors”: The National Eating Disorders Association’s online community and rhetorical vision

Rhetorical-critical public relations: Advocacy for stigmatized health issues

Rhetorical and critical perspectives of public relations can work synergistically to investigate how groups and organizations use language to share meaning while questioning the consequences and assumptions of language and action within a power-laden social environment (Ihlen, 2016; Toth, 2010). Rhetoric for public relations is a process of sharing meaning via statement and counterstatement in a societal context (Heath, 2006) and the associated stream of research has often focused on evaluating the effectiveness of organizational rhetoric (Ihlen, 2016). As a separate, but related critical approach to public relations, scholars explore the consequences of public relations and question assumptions within the discipline, the practice, and society (Toth, 2010). “Organizations can lend power to our individual voices” (Hoffman and Ford, 2010: 4), which means scholars must reflect on societal power structures and how those structures are acknowledged, challenged, and reformulated overtime by organizations and their rhetoric. For these reasons, this essay evaluates NEDA’s efforts both rhetorically and critically.

Advocacy and activist organizations afford organized voice to people who experience stigma and marginalization for a variety of reasons (Waymer, 2012), submitting those ideas and perspectives for societal review. While the distinctions between advocacy and activism remain murky in public relations, some of the fundamental differences that have been outlined in the health literature are that advocacy focuses on educating and working within existing systems while activism works toward dismantling oppressive systems and power structures that hinder health and well-being (Brown et al., 2004; Zoller, 2005). To be sure, advocacy organizations assert the interests of their constituents in order to foster political and social change (Heath, 2008) and thus engage in a “wrangle in the marketplace of ideas, preferences, choices, and influence” (Heath, 2011: 420). Society can be more fully functioning when a diverse set of voices are listened to (Heath, 2006). But, advocates must consider how to amplify marginalized voices within established power structures that often fail to truly incorporate and value marginalized perspectives. Advocacy organizations often serve as consolidated rhetorical sources to combat arguments and narratives that are harmful to people who experience mental illnesses and often seek to change stigmatizing cultural expectations, media representations, and policies (Ciszek and Gallicano, 2013; Trevisan, 2017). An understanding of stigma and related rhetorical processes is imperative to understanding how to use advocacy to refute it.

Because stigma is reinforced through daily social practices and discourses (e.g. labeling, normalizing, valuing, etc.) (Dimitrov, 2015; Theurer et al., 2015) it constitutes a rhetorical process whereby people make meaning of their labels and behaviors in comparison to the many examples and competing arguments within society. Stigma has been defined as an undesirable designation or association that diminishes someone’s identity (Dimitrov, 2015; Goffman 1990). Stigma can perpetuate silence, denial, and/or concealment of various conditions (Dimitrov, 2015; Goffman, 1990) and, consequently, people with mental illnesses often refrain from pursuing treatment (Ahmedani, 2011; Theurer et al., 2015). Multiple types of stigma exist and stigma transverses public and internal sources (Corrigan, 2004; Theurer et al., 2015). Previous research suggests that eating disorders may elicit more stigma than other mental illnesses like depression because of the misconception that eating disorders are a choice or phase (Roehrig and McLean, 2010). Thus, stigma has interconnecting sources and consequences that are influenced by the ways in which people label experiences and the processing of these labels in relation to what is considered normal, right, and desirable within social contexts (Dimitrov, 2015; Goffman, 1990).

While stigma breeds through shame and silence, stigma can also fuel activism (Madden, 2019) and scholars have outlined protest and advocacy as important ways to address stigma (Corrigan, 2004). What remains at question is how health advocacy organizations engage various publics and communities to share interpretations of stigmatized health issues via narrative, especially when people have a wide range of experiences with a particular health issue. SCT provides a framework for understanding how narrative functions within groups and how people and organizations can build rhetorical visions together, pointing to an opportunity for health advocacy organizations to connect people through a common diagnosis or health experience.

Symbolic convergence theory

SCT provides a framework to understand the components and emergence of social reality and scholars have found it useful in exploring a range of public relations questions (Palenchar and Heath, 2002; Vasquez, 1993). SCT examines how groups of people create common narratives about experiences that can facilitate shared social reality (Bormann, 1972, 1983). Bormann et al. (1997) described SCT as an explanation for how people find “common symbolic ground” and the creation and maintenance of a “community’s consciousness” (254). The term “fantasy theme” was originally conceptualized in small groups as an imaginative “recollection of something that happened to the group in the past or a dream of what the group might do in the future” (Bormann, 1972: 397). Participants contribute to a rhetorical vision by adding, or chaining, their own experiences and they can weave together these experiences into a more encompassing drama, or rhetorical vision, that helps them make sense of their social reality (Bormann, 1972, 1985). Rhetorical visions are recorded and labeled via symbolic cues—words, phrases, slogans, keywords, etc. that elicit emotions or responses from a group of people who share social reality (Bormann, 1985; Bormann et al., 2001). Symbolic cues also abbreviate fantasy themes and allow people to quickly recall a particular social reality or experience (Bormann, 1985). In the original context of small group communication, an example of a symbolic cue could include an inside joke or phrase shared by people within the rhetorical community (Bormann et al., 2001).

Scholars have questioned SCT’s foundations in that it tacitly assumes and supports convergence (Zanin et al., 2016), perhaps to the detriment of dissensus or without sufficient acknowledgment of divergence. Rhetorical visions without contestation, in fact, may indicate how dominant social actors marginalize certain visions in place of one that benefits status quos and existing discourses (Olufowote, 2006). Olufowote (2006) interrogated the prosocial bent of SCT to illustrate how Karl Weick’s explanation of sensemaking unbounds rhetorical vision by explaining it as a process of meaning making about lived experience. Instead of conceptualizing shared narrative as a way in which everyone shares the same meaning, which limits their experience to a particular interpretation, rhetorical visions can inspire coalitions of understanding and action (Olufowote, 2006). From this perspective, rhetorical visions do not necessarily override the variety of identities and group associations that people have outside of a rhetorical community or develop a monolithic sense of shared social reality, but allow people to find the intersections of their individual lived experiences. From a health advocacy standpoint, this could mean that people are bound together by a diagnosis or health condition and embrace those commonalities within the community while still acknowledging and valuing their many diverse identity factors (e.g. race, socioeconomic status, ethnicity, gender identity, sexual orientation, etc.)

Broadly, SCT has interested public relations scholars because of its potential to explain how organizations and publics share meaning via narrative. For instance, Vasquez (1993) used the situational theory of publics (STP) to complement the theory-based message design inherent in SCT with opportunities to identify relevant publics as targets of those messages. Such efforts were also intended to further develop a homo narrans paradigm of public relations that acknowledged how organizations and publics share stories and narratives (Vasquez, 1993). Public relations scholars have also explored questions of symbolic meaning in parallel with SCT, suggesting the usefulness of SCT for the discipline. For example, Palenchar and Heath (2002) used SCT to understand both risk communication content and process and explained how zones of meaning indicate shared understanding of an event or issue. Zones of meaning represent how people develop common understanding by critiquing ideas and opinions and negotiating a variety of interpretations within society (Heath, 1993, 2006). In parallel with zones of meaning, rhetorical visions can evaluate what, how, and why communities share or resist an understanding of an issue or event.

The concept of community has been conceptualized differently in the contexts of public relations and SCT. Explanations of community in public relations often focus on the multiple realms of community—geographic, symbolic, cultural, experiential, and identity—as connections that draw people together (Hallahan, 2004). Bormann (1983) explained a rhetorical community as the collective of contributors to a rhetorical vision and clarified that researchers could find the rhetorical community after first identifying the rhetorical vision. Drawing parallels between SCT and public relations, Vasquez (1993) explained publics and rhetorical communities as “analogous” (p. 209). From this comparison, it still remains unclear if and how organizations can actually participate in a rhetorical community. Furthermore, online communication and social media have changed the ways in which public relations scholars describe communities and community participation. Scholars argued that social media affords people with new opportunities to take part in communication processes and presents them with “increased power in their interactions with organizations” (Sundstrom and Levenshus, 2017: 18). Throughout this analysis, I use the term “community” to refer to the people who interact with NEDA and other social media users and I use the term “rhetorical community” when specifically considering people who participate in shared social reality via rhetorical vision.

Recovery warriors: Cueing to vision and action

Warriors emerged across time and space on NEDA’s social media and within the larger eating disorder advocacy community. NEDA addressed its online communities as warriors and recovery warriors, used hashtags such as #edwarriors, #recoverywarriors, and #NEDAWarriors, sold warrior bracelets and t-shirts, held a virtual fundraiser titled “The Warrior Experience,” and adorned facemasks with “warrior.” Jessica Flint, former NEDA walk coordinator, is CEO/founder of Recovery Warriors, an organization that provides support and educational resources for people recovering from an eating disorder. Flint explained the meaning of the recovery warrior metaphor within the broader eating disorder community on the Recovery Warrior website, “#recoverywarriors are people who have known defeat, known suffering, known struggle and have risen up from the depths. WARRIORS DO NOT JUST HAPPEN” (Recovery Warriors, n.d.). The recovery warrior metaphor is imbued with a heroic narrative and connotations of warrior that connect to existing collective imaginaries of victory. The adoption of the warrior cue across various platforms and organizations may also indicate the value of the fantasy to a wider audience (Bormann et al., 2001).

The “Why”: Fighting stigma and illness

A warrior metaphor underpinned NEDA’s social media communication with publics and signaled to a potential community and narrative that framed people’s individual challenges with eating disorders as figurative war, the people working toward recovery as heroes, and recovery as winning. As an example, NEDA shared the following caption on its Facebook page alongside a picture of a glowing light saber, “‘That’s how we’re gonna win. Not fighting what we hate, but saving what we love.’—Rose, Star Wars: The Last Jedi. Be kind to yourselves today, recovery warriors, and may the force be with you always.” Star Wars holds its own meanings as a battle between light and dark forces and a search for what is good and virtuous, which further affixes the recovery warrior metaphor to common points of reference. As another example, NEDA shared the following Facebook caption alongside an image of a colorful sunrise, “The sun rises even after the darkest nights. So will you, recovery warrior.” Juxtapositions of sun light and darkness, love and hate, hero and villain, underline a recovery warrior journey that is rife with both adversity and triumph.

People in the social media community sometimes framed their stories as battles and identified as warriors, too. An Instagram commenter noted, “There were many young men and boys who fought this disorder while I was in a partial inpatient program. It’s so important for everyone to be recognized! It makes this battle less lonely.” Such comments echo back to pieces of the narrative by associating the process of recovery as a battle to explain their experiences within the frame of the hero narrative. NEDA shared a quote on Facebook from a guest-authored blog post, “We go through life fighting battles that you can’t see. Every day, we wake up and start the fight all over again” (Niemela, 2017). Eating disorders are mistakenly viewed as a choice and consequently often not regarded as serious illnesses. A compelling reason for NEDA to promote a shared reality that embodies a hero journey filled with battling and fighting is that it brings a sense of seriousness that stands in opposition to the trivialization of eating disorders. Fantasy themes are also action based, meaning that characters engage in behaviors that explain some type of human experience (Bormann et al., 2001). The battle component of the warrior metaphor illustrates the heroic action of fighting as analogous to the experiences of internal strife, against the backdrop of what might look like mundane human existence. Furthermore, identifying the people who face these illnesses as warriors implies that their illnesses are dangerous and the battles, like battles of a war, are life or death.

Eating disorder symptoms specifically functioned as internal mental and psychological strife, which situated a warrior hero as at battle with, but separate from their villain-like illnesses. As NEDA posted on Instagram, “yes, YOU!! You deserve to live a happy, healthy life and don’t let any one else (or even your own dark thoughts) try to convince you otherwise! We’re rooting for you!” “Dark thoughts” is personified in the ability to “convince” and the use conveys an ambiguous character standing in the way of recovery. In a clearer villainization, an Instagram commenter framed their internal strife as a monstrous character. When asked what being a #NEDAWarrior meant to them, “being a #nedawarrior means waking up every day and finding strength to fight against the demons in my head that want me to stay sick.” Here, a battle analogy not only highlights the heroic actions of the warrior, but also etches the villain as a central character of the fantasy. The image of warriors juxtaposed with eating disorder battles as internal “dark thoughts,” and “demons,” frames the illness as an internal, inflicted opponent rather than a choice, cry for attention, or inherent part of a person. Instead, the warrior metaphor creates a shared reality of eating disorder symptoms as imaginative and evil characters in stark contrast to the light and virtuous hero described earlier.

When people join in shared reality via fantasies, they often identify the same heroes and villains within a given narrative and may also see certain actions or qualities as praise worthy (Bormann, 1985). NEDA shared art from a member of its Instagram community and the artwork included the phrase “you deserve to live.” To accompany the shared artwork, NEDA authored “yes you do! Keep fighting, #recovery warrior.” A warrior metaphor frames people who experience eating disorders as worthy heroes taking difficult, but praiseworthy, steps toward their individual journeys. NEDA also authored Instagram posts about strength, “Stay strong. You are loved and recovery is possible. It’s not always easy, but you can do it!” In society, there are harmful stereotypes about people who experience mental illnesses as worthless or weak (Theurer et al., 2015) and such stereotypes can be internalized (Corrigan, 2004). The warrior narrative pushes back on those negative stereotypes or internalized feelings by capitalizing on the qualities of warriors as strong, brave, and deserving heroes. While these examples show the potential to address and resist stigmatizing beliefs about eating disorders in ways that point to why an advocacy organization and community might find a recovery warrior narrative valuable, it is also crucial to consider unintended consequences of its use.

Medicine has long used war or warrior metaphors and scholars have argued that such metaphors have had both positive and negative consequences for individual identities and illness discourses (Hansen, 2018). Specifically, the war or warrior metaphor can elicit a negative self-narrative or perception if the illness cannot be “fought” and/or the battle cannot be “won” (Hansen, 2018). For example, NEDA posted on Instagram, “even if you don’t always feel strong, just know that you have so much power within you” along with #edwarriors. Some commenters refuted this post with responses such as “I’m not,” “doesn’t feel like it,” and “strong people get tired too.” When a person’s experience does not align with the warrior narrative, it could produce feelings of failure, inadequacy, and/or abnormality. The presumed narrative that accompanies the warrior metaphor opens up important discussions about the positive and negative interpretations of self and self-stigma for eating disorders. The ways in which NEDA used the metaphor as a symbolic cue also display the potential of the narrative to rally a community around shared social reality and facilitate collective action.

The “How”: Cueing and labeling for action

A primary way that NEDA used the warrior metaphor and associated hero narrative was to cue to warriors’ emotions and encourage them to share their experiences. NEDA shared user generated content, which often included recovery art crafted by people in the online community or pictures of their recovery tattoos. As an example of this process, NEDA shared an image of a community member’s recovery tattoo, which included NEDA’s logo. NEDA shared this photo with the caption “All flowers grow through dirt. Keep going, recovery warriors!” Commenters shared their general plans for future recovery tattoos and a specific commenter shared a photo of their tattoo. In a following post, NEDA shared the commenter’s tattoo as the organization’s Facebook post. The commenter thanked NEDA for featuring the comment as a post while other participants chained their ideas for future recovery tattoos. A similar chaining process occurred when NEDA shared a picture of two matching tattoos with the partial caption, “Do you have a recovery tattoo? Show us your ink, recovery warriors!” Community members shared their tattoos and described how these visual reminders helped them to stay strong and how proud they were of themselves and other community members. A commenter shared that the tattoo reminds them to keep going and that they are, “So proud of the recovery warriors like myself.” In these examples, NEDA’s use of the metaphor cued people to share their stories with the online community and participate in the chaining behaviors that indicate shared reality (Bormann et al., 2001). This case also speaks to an important visual representation of the recovery warrior fantasy in that NEDA’s logo is consistently identifiable, yet reimagined on each participant’s skin. These logos are permanently affixed to their bodies conveying the deep meaning and loyalty that some people in the community feel toward the organization, what it represents, and their journey as a recovery warrior.

NEDA also used “warrior” as a label and direct address for calls to action within its community. NEDA posted on local chapter Facebook pages and addressed the online community as a collective (i.e. “warriors”) in general posts and to specifically prepare for NEDA walks and advocacy events. For example, NEDA posted on an affiliate’s page, “Hey NEDA Warriors! Will you be NEDA Walking with friends or family?” or “CALLING ALL NEDA WARRIORS! Our fight against eating disorders NEVER stops.” In these instances, NEDA used “warriors” as a direct address to corral people within the community to prepare for collective fundraising and advocacy work. Much like a battle cry, the recovery warrior cue was poised to help people quickly recall a shared reality and rally the online community to advocacy.

The warrior cue was also used as a label for events and subgroups within the online community. In 2020, NEDA hosted a “Warrior Experience” virtual fundraising event to support the increased demands of its helpline during COVID-19. The Facebook event had a cover photo with the text, “We all have a story. We are all warriors #NEDAwarrior.” NEDA also promoted a “Warrior Club” to recognize its leading fundraisers for this event. On both Facebook and Instagram, NEDA asked for people to share what being #NEDAWarriors means to them. NEDA also shared select “Warrior Club” responses about the meaning of #NEDAWarrior, which included: supporting people who experience eating disorders, reminding themselves and others that they are not alone, ending stigma associated with mental health, and eradicating eating disorders. The adaptation of the warrior cue to center NEDA, rather than recovery, brings into question if and how a warrior metaphor can reorient the recovery journey more outwardly, transitioning from fighting internal demons as the enemy to a more ambiguous social enemy.

Affixing the fantasy to social issues

The recovery warrior narrative explored thus far situates the battles that people face as primarily internal, but NEDA and its community also brought to bear the external social forces and social injustices that perpetuate eating disorders. At a height of the Me Too movement in 2017, NEDA and community members acknowledged issues of sexual violence and the ways in which trauma and eating disorders intermingle. Actor and LGBTQ activist Elliot Page posted to his own social media about his experience with sexual trauma from the entertainment industry and the ramifications sexual violence/assault can have for mental and physical health. NEDA shared Page’s reflections as its Facebook status and ended with a quote from Page:

Thank you, [Elliot] Page. Read this post to learn more about the connection between sexual violence, trauma, and eating disorders: http://bit.ly/2hjuCex ‘I am grateful to anyone and everyone who speaks out against abuse and trauma they have suffered. You are breaking the silence. You are the revolution.’

NEDA shared a similar post on Instagram with the caption “we applaud @[Elliot] Page’s bravery.”

Speaking out against violence as a form of bravery echoes a warrior hero engaged in “revolution,” while also combining the ideals and connecting recovery warrior fantasy elements with social change causes. Furthermore, NEDA praises the actions of a clear hero (Elliot Page). Highlighting how sexual violence connects to eating disorders ties the online community to feminist causes and has the potential to de-stigmatize eating disorders by conveying how these illnesses are not a character flaw or choice, but rather responses to traumatic events.

Some users shared comments that pointed to cases of sensemaking and chaining in relation to trauma and their eating disorders with language that embodies the warrior fantasy. On another post specifically about trauma, NEDA shared a blog post with a caption explaining the connections between sexual trauma and eating disorders. A commenter chained and explained that their experience was to look unwell so that men would not harass them. Another poster communicated how their eating disorder sheltered them from trauma. One commenter compared an eating disorder in the context of trauma to a coffin-like tourture device with internal spikes (iron maiden), that simultaneously shields and harms and then confirmed their understanding of the previous commenter’s interpretation with “I get it.” The user’s language aligned with the metaphor inherent in the symbolic cue and also indicates mutual understanding with the other commenters. Comparing eating disorders to shields is indicative of yet another take on a warrior metaphor with a threat that originates from the outside world. The warrior fantasy affords language to describe the very emotional, ambivalent, and complex ways that eating disorders coalesce with trauma and shows how people become enveloped in the metaphor and its presumed warrior narrative, filled with tragedy, desperation, and (hopefully) peace. The internal, demonic eating disorder villain described earlier is also reframed as a metaphorical shield against trauma, which elicits internal responses to external events. As time has progressed and attention to important social issues such as racism and weight bias has increased, the warrior fantasy and shared social reality faced important social justice battles with interpretations that both aligned and diverged within the online community.

Since 2017, NEDA has continued to expand beyond sexism and has addressed other issues of social justice in its social media communication. Some examples include gender diversity/inclusivity, weight stigma, and racism. It posted for World Social Justice day in February 2020. It issued a statement in June 2020 in light of racial justice protests against police brutality and to “stand in solidarity with Black Lives Matter.” In this sense, the attention to feminism and social justice noted earlier could be understood as an opportunity for the online community to “critique not only gender, but also the social justice implications of interlocking oppressions and privileges for all people” (Golombisky, 2015: 390).

As of September and October 2020, NEDA began promoting Weight Stigma Awareness Week (WSAW #2020) with a variety of images and phrases such as, “weight stigmatization is both a social justice and a public health issue.” In some instances, warrior language emerged as fighting social norms and stigma related to weight. For instance, NEDA shared a post about an activist/leader for the Body Positive Movement (Dr. Deb Burgard) with the following partial caption, “On NEDA’s blog, she explores how we can fight against weight stigma to build a future where everyone is respected and safe.” Again, “fight” represents the inherent action of a warrior while applying it to a different kind of battle and for a cause beyond individual recovery. These social justice battles extended to issues of racism and police brutality. On a NEDA post that called for justice for George Floyd, an Instagram commenter illustrated a similar adaptation of a battle theme by stating, “We can’t fight for one group of people, we must fight for everyone <3.” Essentially, a warrior fight for recovery was problematized by an increasing realization of how racism, oppression, stigma, and discrimination influence all aspects of health, and how a warrior fantasy may extend individual recovery to fighting social injustice for self and other people. However, tensions arose at different points of time and illustrate how fundamental rifts in shared meaning challenged a warrior rhetorical vision. Next, I offer two cases to depict these tensions and describe how these tensions might influence shared social reality via rhetorical vision.

Tensions and limitations

Solidifying social justice as a central battle for the community had its limitations, one being the resistance of some community members to pursuing issues of social justice through NEDA. In 2017, for example, a commenter stated that transgender issues were unrelated to NEDA’s mission referring to the increased posts for Transgender Awareness Week. The commenter ended their complaint with “you no longer have my support.” In response to this commenter, another community member argued that people in the LGBTQ+ community have increased chances of developing eating disorders and stated, “if you can’t handle a week of support for a demographic that doesn’t include you, then I have one word for you: Bye.” The discussion continued with the previous commenter clarifying that they meant redirecting their “financial support” to organizations that focus specifically on eating disorders. This interaction serves as an example of the rifts within the community and shows how, despite NEDA including the voices and experience of people who do not fit the stereotypical cisgender images of women with eating disorders, some people within their online community still hold harmful and inaccurate understandings of transgender identity and refuse to see eating disorders as inherently interconnected with social justice.

In 2020, another rift appeared and speaks to a deep questioning of NEDA’s role in the eating disorder community and its organizational mission. Shortly before the series of Weight Stigma Awareness (WSAW) posts, NEDA reportedly fired founder of BEDA and Chief Policy and Strategy Officer Chevese Turner, who was described as an avid supporter of marginalized communities (e.g. LGBTQ and larger bodied people). Commenters took to social media, demanded a response about Turner’s termination, and spoke out about how that firing works against NEDA’s social justice causes. As one commenter explained:

As a person living with an ED in a large body, I am deeply concerned with the decision

to terminate the employment of Chevese Turner from your organization. I hope there will be meaningful discussion and representation for those of us in large bodies going forward as Chevese was/is a guiding light in my recovery.

Another commenter highlighted how NEDA used WSAW without crediting Turner or BEDA, “It’s sad because people deserve activism but it must be authentic, and led by the people you purport to help. What you’re doing is hollow and hurtful.” Commenters also expressed that NEDA must reflect on how weight stigma operates within its community and how it upholds systems of oppression in its advocacy work by failing to diversify its employees, particularly in terms of body weight/size. NEDA did not answer these comments directly on its social media posts. Instead, it issued a statement that acknowledged some of the important points about its shortcomings and committed to addressing these issues. Because fantasy themes, cues, and visions require common ground and mutual understanding, the fissures in the community point to an absence of shared consciousness and thus a decline in shared fantasy and rhetorical vision (Bormann et al., 2001). Members of the online community expressed that they cannot align with NEDA because it has not sufficiently challenged the systems in place that continue to disadvantage and harm people who do not fit thin, white, cisgender stereotypes of eating disorders. Subsets of its online community want more revolutionary changes to its practices to see themselves as aligned with the community, any shared vision, and corresponding advocacy actions, which may inspire new or expanded visions and shared reality that redirect these groups and the broader community.

Navigating zones of meaning: health experience and social change orientation as “zones.”

As the leading eating disorder advocacy organization, NEDA has to manage a variety of interests, tensions, and competing interpretations of reality related to eating disorders that are highly dynamic. A rhetorical community acknowledges zones of meaning, “knowledge, experience, preferences, motives, opinions held in the mind of some people in society, which may be quite unique to them” (Heath, 2013: 977) and within this analysis we see multiple competing zones of meaning emerging at different times. Furthermore, social reality and shared understanding does not happen in a vacuum. Events such as the murder of George Floyd and the COVID-19 global pandemic also shaped NEDA’s communication and advocacy events and influenced how community members responded to NEDA’s work. These evolutions and changing social realities speak to how, “individuals, small or large groups, and communities, even global ones, can share zones of meaning, that are constantly changing” (Palenchar and Heath, 2002: 134). The cases of tension within the community illustrate how the recovery warrior fantasy may have lost explanatory power when applied to a social justice context and/or how rifts between community members may have challenged the ability to facilitate shared social reality. As the social context and interpretations changed, NEDA was challenged to ethically and effectively advocate for and with people who experience a range of injustices that relate to eating disorders. This analysis also brings to bear how health experience as “a” zone of meaning is complicated by identity and experiences of marginalization.

Advocacy organizations that seek to corral people around a shared heath experience must consider the various levels (individual, group, and community) of experience to understand how narrative can or cannot encompass people’s social reality based on different relationships to stigma and marginalization. For example, a recovery warrior fantasy described in this analysis might embody the experiences of people who have been diagnosed with an eating disorder and are on their journeys to recovery. Such a fantasy may not explain the experiences of people who have not been diagnosed because of weight/body size, race, gender identity, etc. and are calling for structural changes to the power balances within society that diminish their health and well-being. Furthermore, the overlap of individual opinions, beliefs and experiences of the online community may or may not override the intersecting loyalties to other identity factors that have their own zones of meaning (such as body size, gender identity, sexual orientation, and race) detracting from efforts to create rhetorical vision and zones of meaning across a range of privileged and marginalized lived experiences.

The tensions presented in the analysis also speak to advocacy and activist ideals as shaping and framing zones of meaning. The examples of online community members calling out harmful stereotypes or lack of action and commitment to social justice issues such as weight stigma must serve as a reckoning for advocacy organizations that have a foothold in activist efforts. Parts of the community share a zone of meaning that calls for more than education and advancement within systems. They want to fundamentally change the eating disorder advocacy and treatment systems that have excluded them (Brown et al., 2004; Zoller 2005) by fully incorporating the voices of people who experience oppression based on their weight, gender identities, etc. Advocacy organizations, particularly those that espouse social justice efforts, must critically reflect on how advocacy as an interpretive frame can uphold dominant ideas and discourses that rely on a specific, limited interpretation of social reality even when the intention may be to inspire social change and refute stigma. Specifically for this analysis, NEDA must reflect on how its community and advocacy have been shaped by biased biomedical and advocacy discourses that have centered the eating disorder experiences of thin, white, affluent, cisgender women. Considering how zones of meaning change in parallel with societal events, how health experience is complicated by multiple zones of meaning, and how advocacy and activist ideals also shape zones as coalitions of understanding could help both advocacy organizations and scholars better understand the nuances and limitations of how communities can leverage shared social reality for social change.

Organizational orchestration

An important critique of organizational power for rhetorical vision in this context is that, regardless of where or how a narrative originates, an organization may become the central author of the narrative—organizing, shaping and cueing to that narrative in a variety of ways overtime. Such authorship removes the grassroots nature of symbolic convergence. Originally, SCT was applied to small group communication, though it expanded to other communication contexts (Bormann et al., 2001). Heath (2013) similarly described zones of meaning as occurring within physical communities where people live, work, and have tangible experiences together. In a small group context, we can imagine people sharing an experience, perhaps in a physically shared space and in real time, and organically coming to an understanding. This group could then share meaning based on some common recollection of that experience. Applied to online communities, rhetorical vision is likely engineered through organizational messages, campaigns, and efforts to elicit fantasy themes. Chaining, as seen in the examples of this analysis with the sharing of tattoos, are often not spontaneous, but rather cued by the organization’s messages. From a critical perspective, orchestration of a narrative illustrates crucial power imbalances between the organization and publics and among community members that can hinder shared meaning. NEDA can erase comments, block users who do not align with a rhetorical vision, or otherwise silence voices at its discretion. NEDA also has the legitimacy, as the leading U.S. eating disorders advocacy organization, to impose frames of thinking and interpretation either inadvertently or strategically upon people within a community. For organizations to participate in a rhetorical community they must be cognizant to help facilitate communication processes for, but not impose fantasies and/or rhetorical visions. Thus, advocacy organizations might consider ways to facilitate grassroots online communication processes that allow communities to sketch their own zones of meaning and author narratives from bottom up, rather than top down.