Reading "Dueling Dualisms" was an experience that enhanced and enforced my opinions on the subject of sex and gender. My opinions align almost completely with Fausto-Sterling's, especially when she discusses the need for the upheaval of traditional conceptualizations of gender and sex. With that said, I found it very easy to engage with this text since I was already in favor of her ideals. I also enjoyed the fact that much like some other feminists she found this subject to malleable, and tangible for others outside of the scientific or theoretical realm (the denial of the "God-trick"). The subject of gender and sex can be discussed by anyone because it involves everyone and our social and political actions and voices, because it is by these actions and voices that the concept of gender is intimated.
Fausto-Sterling's writing style and her profound tone gave me a sort of empowered feeling -- by "empowered" I mean her explicit critique of the traditional two-sex system unfolded aroused a desire in me to take action, to do something about it. This is at the root of how I am understanding this text as an "intervention" in a pressing issue like gender politics, which is to say Fausto-Sterling is leading a charge against the all too ubiquitous two-sex system, and I feel like her writing is call to arms to anyone else who cares. My intimacy with this text ultimately boils down to this thought: in order to intervene in the constant reproduction of the male/female binary, and to recalculate our assumptions of how a biological being can traverse the spectrum of gender it is not completely up to those trained in sciences (although their guidance and research can certainly impact public opinions) to tell us how traditional thoughts on gender and sex might be changed or even eradicated. Instead, it is up to everyone walking the streets and empirically making their own conclusions about gender and sex. Much like Fausto-Sterling I find it hard not ask: why do I care if someone wants to be a girl if she is a male? How would her political girl-ness presented on her male body really affect anyone else except her and her conscious? Understandably it can throw one's mind in a loop seeing a presentation of gender just mentioned, however accepting that it is not science that will change these feelings is how Fausto-Sterling made me feel.
Sunday, February 19, 2012
Chromosome Count
Anne Fausto-Sterling’s book has helped me find the perfect mix. It balances out the Billion Wicked Thoughts (BWT) into a more holistic and well-rounded perspective. Sexing the Body and A Billion Wicked Thoughts do not take the same stance, nor do they support the same arguments. Instead, I view these two books as a team in which to explore the depth of the issues of human desire and sexuality. BWT offers an approach that attempts to strip away the person, the culture, and the experience. It allows “insights” to be gathered from behind a cloak of secrecy. It takes billions of raw data points and attempts to identify what it means about us all. Sexing the Body, takes the opposite. It places the experience, the person and culture well into the mixture of human desire and argues the areas science cannot. I don’t think it is necessary to support one over the other; instead I look to leverage both texts to develop a whole.
A Billion Wicked Thoughts takes on a Freakonomics-eqse style of statistics and matter-of-fact-ness to the situation. Their tone is strong, pointed, and scientific. This contrasts with Sexing the Body as her tone appears to be strong, political, understanding, challenging, and more. Her book is a tool in which to understand MORE, whereas, BWT seems to be a tool to understand MOST.
In Anne Fausto-Sterling’s Sexing the Body, Chapter 1, she introduced a story about the Spanish Olympian who was disqualified regarding the presence of a Y chromosome. This reminded me of an interesting story about how humans can be categorized or determined to be human and that is through the presence of 23 pair (46 total) of chromosomes. Different species have different numbers of pairs and so on. Like the Olympic scientist they disqualified her because of the presence of a Y chromosome means she was not female. However this scientific way of organizing species meets a problem again with people with down’s syndrome who have 47 chromosomes. Surely everyone supports the idea that people with down’s syndrome are in fact humans, but according to certain rules of science and classifications of genius and species, they may exist some that do not. Sexing the Body faces culture and science in the face right from the start. One of the major claims comes on page 3 of Sexing the Body by saying, “One of the major claims I make in this book is that labeling someone a man or a woman is a social decision.”
Although we have not ventured much into the two texts so far, I look forward to seeing how both books will conflict, support, and expose each other.
Very wicked thoughts!
Reading both books was interesting, but reading A billion wicked thoughts made me somewhat uncomfortable. The book is easy to read, however I feel that Ogas and Gaddam presentation of the human sex desire is based solely on their personal beliefs. While reading the book I imagined that us, humans, have no control over our sexual desire. Now, what I believe is that if we really live in a world where both males and females have no control over desire, then this world will turn into a jungle and we will be just animals.
Fausto-Sterling on the other hand made very good and strong points in her book. Her writing is based on logic and science which made me comfortable understanding her message. She says in her book that the Euro-American ways of understanding how the world works depends heavily on the use of dualisms. I agree with Fausto-Sterling because this is how the human brain works in general. We always need to compare and contrast two things in order to reach an understanding. I also agree that the idea of human sexuality comes to us containing pre-existing ideas about sexual differences. For example, from childhood we learn the difference between males and females. We know that males are more muscular and have physical ability and strength that females do not have. Also, our ideas about the sexuality of gays is shaped by our personal beliefs, family, culture or religious beliefs.
Fausto-Sterling on the other hand made very good and strong points in her book. Her writing is based on logic and science which made me comfortable understanding her message. She says in her book that the Euro-American ways of understanding how the world works depends heavily on the use of dualisms. I agree with Fausto-Sterling because this is how the human brain works in general. We always need to compare and contrast two things in order to reach an understanding. I also agree that the idea of human sexuality comes to us containing pre-existing ideas about sexual differences. For example, from childhood we learn the difference between males and females. We know that males are more muscular and have physical ability and strength that females do not have. Also, our ideas about the sexuality of gays is shaped by our personal beliefs, family, culture or religious beliefs.
I'm tired of the generalities already!
For me, it is refreshing to read Anne Fausto-Sterling compared to the way I feel when I read Ogaddam. While reading Ogaddam, I continually find my self being irritated by their generalities in the way they describe men and women and particularly the way they hold romance novels as being the reality and truth for heterosexual female desire. It is even more frustrating because they rarely (if ever) differentiate between homosexual, heterosexual, bisexual or any other sexuality. By making such generalities their tone is "all-knowing" and makes human desire seem very simple.
I do go back and forth from their "note" page in the back in order to reference where they are getting their information and if they include any thing additional. Usually it simply marks where they received their information, but sometimes they do have a summary of the information they derived their generality from. One generality I found to be curious and then disheartening when I read their note about it was about a survey that asked, '"Would you date someone who didn't know how to drive a car?" Most women answered yes. Most men answered no' (Ogaddam, 103). The generality I want to point out is their use of the term most. Flip forward to the notes page for page 103 and the percentages are presented. In the case of men their generality is correct and but for women they are way off. For straight males that answered YES: 79% and Answered NO: 11.72%. Keep in mind that this is only straight males that they take their numbers from. When it comes to women the numbers are taken from bisexual women as well as straight women. However, they do no state this specifically on page 103. More importantly, their statement is actually false on page 103 because according to the percentages they give in their notes, MORE women said YES they would date someone that did not know how to drive a car. By the use of such a general term as most they are able to make this claim and will be believed if the numbers are never seen.
When I read Sexing the Body I do not feel this sense of generality but instead I read specifics as well as case by case basis. Anne Fausto-Sterling does not use an all knowing tone as if everything she is stating is universal and specifically states how things have changed throughout time as well as culture. This is an important difference from A Billion Wicked Thoughts because as they do talk about other cultures they only do in a way they fits their discourse. Their discourse as I see it is to prove that all women desire the same things in the same way and all men desire the same things in the same way. Anne Fausto-Sterling's discourse is much more complicated and trying to show while some things are similar, much is also different and sees an importance in pointing out these differences in order to create a better understanding and wider knowledge.
While some may feel reassured by the amount of statistics Ogaddam uses in their book, it only makes me that more skeptical in who and where they are getting their information from, as well as the groups of people that are being studied. For me, Fausto-Sterling is more reassuring for me because they takes views from many sides and does not simply focus on one type of people. In contrast she recognizes differences and creates an understanding of how important the recognition of those differences are. As the title of her first chapter is Dualing Dualisms, she certainly is working towards a way to see sexuality in a non-dualistic way which I find extremely important and worth while.
I do go back and forth from their "note" page in the back in order to reference where they are getting their information and if they include any thing additional. Usually it simply marks where they received their information, but sometimes they do have a summary of the information they derived their generality from. One generality I found to be curious and then disheartening when I read their note about it was about a survey that asked, '"Would you date someone who didn't know how to drive a car?" Most women answered yes. Most men answered no' (Ogaddam, 103). The generality I want to point out is their use of the term most. Flip forward to the notes page for page 103 and the percentages are presented. In the case of men their generality is correct and but for women they are way off. For straight males that answered YES: 79% and Answered NO: 11.72%. Keep in mind that this is only straight males that they take their numbers from. When it comes to women the numbers are taken from bisexual women as well as straight women. However, they do no state this specifically on page 103. More importantly, their statement is actually false on page 103 because according to the percentages they give in their notes, MORE women said YES they would date someone that did not know how to drive a car. By the use of such a general term as most they are able to make this claim and will be believed if the numbers are never seen.
When I read Sexing the Body I do not feel this sense of generality but instead I read specifics as well as case by case basis. Anne Fausto-Sterling does not use an all knowing tone as if everything she is stating is universal and specifically states how things have changed throughout time as well as culture. This is an important difference from A Billion Wicked Thoughts because as they do talk about other cultures they only do in a way they fits their discourse. Their discourse as I see it is to prove that all women desire the same things in the same way and all men desire the same things in the same way. Anne Fausto-Sterling's discourse is much more complicated and trying to show while some things are similar, much is also different and sees an importance in pointing out these differences in order to create a better understanding and wider knowledge.
While some may feel reassured by the amount of statistics Ogaddam uses in their book, it only makes me that more skeptical in who and where they are getting their information from, as well as the groups of people that are being studied. For me, Fausto-Sterling is more reassuring for me because they takes views from many sides and does not simply focus on one type of people. In contrast she recognizes differences and creates an understanding of how important the recognition of those differences are. As the title of her first chapter is Dualing Dualisms, she certainly is working towards a way to see sexuality in a non-dualistic way which I find extremely important and worth while.
Fausto-Sterling: a real case for human sexuality
I'm going to disclaim myself from the start by saying that I'm biased towards Fausto-Sterling simply because I've read her before, have had great teachers rave about her. That said, I'm much more partial to Sexing the Body than I am A Billion Wicked Thoughts. I feel that the latter is a book that was created almost solely for an economic purpose and the reductionism and strict adherence to dichotomous behavior is ridiculous.
Fausto-Sterling examines the idea of sexuality from an incredibly academic (as in, all academia- not just science, not just "cultural studies," etc) standpoint. Her research is also much more extensive than the research used in A Billion Wicked Thoughts. When I read Fausto-Sterling I feel like, if confronted, she would probably listen to a well put together argument against her case and, although she'd stand up for her conclusions, she'd be willing to reassess her analysis if legitimate questions and concerns were put forth. Oggadam, on the other hand, I think would probably just throw some well-chosen stats in your face and then poo-poo on everyone who disagrees.
The other thing I really liked about Fausto-Sterling's book was that she doesn't appeal to Oggadamn's idea that there's THIS one thing and THAT one other thing... and that's it. I don't think we can reduce human beings into two tight groups or, for that matter, 100 tight groups. The human mind and body is way, way too complex to even attempt to fit it into specific categories. Sexing the Body is much more flexible in it's take on humans, which is necessary considering our unmatched ability to be totally whacked out and to intentionally f-up scientific/expected patterns, etc.
My favorite aspect of Fausto-Sterling's book, I think, is her embracement of "nurture" as a totally viable cause or, I think a better word would be "element," in the development of a person's sexuality or gender or whatever. Granted, I don't want to just dismiss science completely because that's very important- I mean, genes do determine your physical body- but I think it's essential that anyone trying to determine anything about human sexuality analyze, or at least recognize, the person's environment that they grew up. It's absolutely impossible not to be influenced by your surroundings and, yes, some people will be affected by their nurturing more than others, but it has undoubtedly some kind of significance.
So, obviously, I'm way over on the Fausto-Sterling side. I think A Billion Wicked Thoughts is, I guess, interesting and stuff, but I don't think it's worth a lot. At least in comparison to Sexing the Body.
A little bit of everything...
I was slightly relieved while reading the first chapter of Sexing the Body. After my initial “wtf” reaction to A Billion Wicked Thoughts, I am very happy to say that I had a much more positive reaction to the writings of Anne Fausto-Sterling. In contrast to the matter-of-fact arrogance in presenting porn statistics and using them to deduce the differences between the genders, I am much more comfortable with Fausto-Sterling’s academic based focus (and perhaps her 200 page Notes and Bibliography): simply because of the broader source material and the fact that her subject also includes those that do not watch porn or read slash fiction on the internet. Her flexibility with discussing the complex topic of sexuality is much more in tune with my own opinions and experiences than the drastic binary presented by Ogaddam.
What I find so appealing is Fausto-Sterling’s openness to consider several conflicting areas of her life that could influence her opinion on gender identity and sexuality. As a biologist, I think that biological pathways have some say in gender and sexual identity, just as biology ultimately determines the physical sex of an organism. However, like Anne Fausto-Sterling, I will not deny that there are social and environmental factors that play a role as well. On that note, she even brings up a notion previously discussed in class: the fact that naming something, changes the thing itself (“By helping to give large numbers of people an identity and a name, medicine also helped to shape these people’s experiences and change their behavior, creating not just a new disease [not that I think homosexuality is a disease of any kind], but a new species of person, ‘the modern homosexual’” (14)). This notion just adds to the argument that, while there is a biological mechanism for sex determination in an organism, it is much less clear-cut how one becomes a gender psychologically or determines one's sexual orientation. By considering all of these different viewpoints, I feel like Fausto-Sterling will be able to come to a better, more consistent and more versatile conclusion than Ogaddam can by simply analyzing what people search for in pornography.
Saturday, February 18, 2012
A necessary discomfort
Reading both sexing the body and a billion wicked thoughts causes me to wince when reading and make all sorts of faces that people watching me reading the books would find funny and intriguing. Reading sexual material is something I have always found to be uncomfortable but nonetheless very entertaining. I do not personally watch porn, but I do acknowledge it as a highly consumed product (if you could call it that?) and people I find myself to be in relationships often watch it, which I am okay with. Reading about all the kinky and squicky types of porn in a billion wicked thoughts makes me extremely uncomfortable but yet curious about these insane facets of human sexuality and personality, while sexing the body is more of an interesting interpretation of sex and the relationship of preconceived notions as well as social constructions and how they relate back to human sexuality. Anne Fausto Sterling makes very strong points, but in a way her tone is a bit of a turn off, while I think billion wicked thoughts is more pragmatist and easier to read. I personally gain more from a more data-style composition rather than a heated personal interpretation of reality. Billion wicked thoughts creeps me out in the sense that it is all data gathered from internet searches (people DO HAVE THE ABILITY TO TRACK US!) which freaks me out much like the recommendations in the sidebar every time I log into facebook.
Sexing the body takes a very interesting position about culture and its ability to shape the mind about certain stereotypes and archetypes that human personalities are supposed to fit into, and in some regards I really agree with her point and her strong purpose of writing this essay to educate society on the reality of gender politics and the social constructs of sexuality and personality, but I think she also needs to take into account other factors that play into human emotion and personality (remember the scene where Donnie Darko completely discredits his teachers ridiculous fear/love summation of all of human emotion?) and take into account all the other factors that influence people. It is hard for me to read one-sided opinionized accounts of anything because shutting out any potential details is detrimental to the scientific method when studying anything.
In some regards I strongly disagree with her ideas about gender and sexuality being purely a product of society when there is evolutionary evidence to suggest reasoning as to why men and women behave the way they do, such as big breasts being indicative of fertility, thus breeding innate attraction. It bothers me when staunch feminists give everything to prove that men and women are equal and their methodology to do this is to prove that they are the same. I don't believe that men and women are the same, but that doesn't mean that they cannot be equal. Women have more instinctive abilities while men win in physical strength. Being different doesn't discredit a gender to be lesser than the other.
These books make me uncomfortable, but it is a necessary discomfort because in order to better understand these facets of human personality and sexuality I need to force myself to be uncomfortable and take on these issues first hand to learn more about them.
Sexing the body takes a very interesting position about culture and its ability to shape the mind about certain stereotypes and archetypes that human personalities are supposed to fit into, and in some regards I really agree with her point and her strong purpose of writing this essay to educate society on the reality of gender politics and the social constructs of sexuality and personality, but I think she also needs to take into account other factors that play into human emotion and personality (remember the scene where Donnie Darko completely discredits his teachers ridiculous fear/love summation of all of human emotion?) and take into account all the other factors that influence people. It is hard for me to read one-sided opinionized accounts of anything because shutting out any potential details is detrimental to the scientific method when studying anything.
In some regards I strongly disagree with her ideas about gender and sexuality being purely a product of society when there is evolutionary evidence to suggest reasoning as to why men and women behave the way they do, such as big breasts being indicative of fertility, thus breeding innate attraction. It bothers me when staunch feminists give everything to prove that men and women are equal and their methodology to do this is to prove that they are the same. I don't believe that men and women are the same, but that doesn't mean that they cannot be equal. Women have more instinctive abilities while men win in physical strength. Being different doesn't discredit a gender to be lesser than the other.
These books make me uncomfortable, but it is a necessary discomfort because in order to better understand these facets of human personality and sexuality I need to force myself to be uncomfortable and take on these issues first hand to learn more about them.
Friday, February 17, 2012
AOL Search Logs
This is a condensed collection put out by the website Something Awful with some silly commentary in between. A Billion Wicked Thoughts briefly talked about these AOL Search Logs from 2006 and used these searches as apart of their research.
I would STRONGLY recommend checking these out, with caution though. It's pretty raw. Stories unfold and emotions arise, disgust or laughter. Personally it's one of my favorite things I've came across on the internet.
Share your thoughts! And more importantly, your feelings.
Oh and by the way, there's a documentary called KinK on Netflix. A very weird show indeed but goes quite well with ogoddam. Once again, viewer's discretion advised (it's explicit at times). I only got through about twenty minutes. Lots of rhetoric being spilled though.
Blog Posting #4 (due Sunday 2/19, 11:59 P.M.): Encountering Anne Fausto-Sterling's intervention
Over the next several weeks, the term intervention will become an important part of your life. (Whether you like it or not...) Most obviously because is the name of a major assignment we will give you on Tuesday: you and your project group will be tasked with identifying a problem in science and culture, analyzing it in as much depth and breadth as possible, and then creating a piece of public writing that does something about it. This is not an easy task, so we thought an example might be helpful, at the outset. Hence we're reading Anne Fausto-Sterling's Sexing the Body. It was not written as a response to Ogas and Gaddam's A Billion Wicked Thoughts (it came out about a decade earlier), but it might as well have been. It intervenes into the same complicated web of issues that we've been working through since Day One -- including but not limited to the Cartesian split, doubt and certainty, determinism, legitimation, the ways in which bodies and minds are (or are not) affected by culture and society, semantic contagion, links and knots, the pile of unsorted data at the back of the lab...
In this blog post, based on your reading of the preface and first chapter ("Dueling Dualisms") of Sexing the Body -- as well as the corresponding (many) endnotes, the cover, the table of contents, the other front matter, the acknowledgements, and the back cover -- we want you to start making sense of how, and how well, Sexing the Body works as an intervention into this set of issues. Use last week's discussion of A Billion Wicked Thoughts as a guide; all the same questions apply. These include: how did you feel, reading it -- and why? Recall that Ogaddam's tone, which we described as confident and certain, made some of us (e.g. Jeehye) feel comfortable and assured and others (e.g. Emily) feel annoyed and put off -- how does Fausto-Sterling's tone make you feel, and why? By what methods does she legitimate her arguments -- and with what effect? Fausto-Sterling, like Lewontin and unlike Ogaddam and Pinker, takes an explicit political position. Does this bring her closer to "truth," "the facts," and/or "reality"? Why?
Feel free to answer any or all of these questions, in whatever order. Feel free to bring in Ogaddam, and/or any of the earlier texts, if they help you. Feel free to narrate from your own life experience, if it relates. Whatever you need to do in order to take us, in the most compelling way possible, through your initial encounter with the unique, perpetually controversial intervention that is Sexing the Body.
Have fun!
Sunday, February 12, 2012
A Ramble in St.Pauls court
One topic that comes to mind when considering these issues of reality and perception is the topic of criminal trials. In our adversarial legal system we have a prosecutor who represents the state or the county or the federal government, generally speaking us, and then we have the defense attorney who represents the defendant. Both the prosecutor and the defense attorney offer their version of the events. From their version of the events either the judge or the jury have to decide if the person is guilty. In this system we have at least two version of reality and someone decided which version of reality will go down in the record was what is considered reality. It is interesting because this occurs always in retrospective and has to meet certain guidelines to be considered reality. In certain cases we might not only have a charge of lets say murder 2 but also have manslaughter 1 and 2, not only does the jury have to decide which version of reality is true but also how to define that reality. What really interests me here is that we create an entire system in which we define reality and based off that we also alter what happens to people, often for the rest of their lives. For most of the procedures in this system people are asked to remove themselves from their emotions and have a very brain in a vat kind of experience, where they examine the facts and apply them to a set of specific definitions so say if in reality what happened was selfe defense, or murder or manslaughter or in some cases if there is any link between the person and the case being presented. However this separation of the person from their emotions or prejudices or ideas can not be truly completed, therefore we recognize a concept of jury nullification by which even people decide that even if the person is guilty they will still be found not guilty because the law is unjust. I find this whole system so fascinating because it entirely invented by us, at the very core of it we present two stories and from those stories we decide by a degree of consensus what we will consider to be reality. It is not like science or a social science or really any academic work because we can also really arbitrarily change these rules with enough time, or in case of jury nullification say the rules are bad and ignore them. However these rules have a very real impact on people who in certain sates might die because a group of that persons peers said that in reality they shot a police officer. Therefore often we have people not care about what really happend when they are facing trial, but care about how the result of the trial will impact their life, people plead guilty to avoid a harsher punishment. Yet when they plead guilty we in our societal record decide that what they said happened was what in reality happened. I know this is a ramble but I just think it is rather interesting how we can define reality in so many different ways.
No cool story here...
I had a lot of trouble coming up with a good example for this blog post. I have never blacked-out, never been hypnotized, and never personally known anyone with an eating disorder, etc. After searching my mind for a suitable example I finally found at least one original idea that seems relevant to this topic; it’s called the facial feedback hypothesis. This idea says that simply the way one moves one’s facial muscles can alter one’s mood. One study had some participants clench a pen in their teeth while reading comics, while another group read the comics with pens clamped between their lips. The participants who held the pen in their teeth reported a greater humor response to the comics than the other participants. The inference is that this heightened humor response was caused because this method of holding the pen closely mimicked the action of smiling whereas the other method did not. This sort of evidence leads me to believe that a mind-body split as described by Descartes is impossible. Furthermore, I believe it shows that reason is important, yet it must take a back seat to evidence. Reason is necessary to interpret what we gain through our senses, yet rely on our senses we must or reason has nothing to act upon. Living in the Western world we can never entirely escape Descartes, yet some of us follow his ideas more closely than others.
Mind Control
The discussion on the Theresa Neumann
phenomenon and current Twinkle situation has brought out a lot of repetitious
wonderings and thought ponderings that I have come across many times in my
life. A science-filled and religion-following upbringing has led me to really
question what it is that occurs around me and why. My father’s side of the
family is extremely Christian and looks to God for all of life’s answers and
worries. My mother’s, on the other hand, is rooted in scientific theory and
explanation.
I
have heard other stories like those of Theresa and Twinkle, with similar doubt
and suspicion. When it comes to the time of lent in the life of a Christian,
some extreme believers choose to instead of only giving some minor thing up as
a display of God’s grace, they give up most everything and fast for the entire
40some days. Now for me, giving up chocolate for the duration from Christmas
day till Easter is a struggle, but it has been well documented and commonly
practiced that true believers go the entirety of lent without any food and only
water to drink. They claim that the belief and trust in God calms their mind
and they know that he will provide for them in all times of hardship. When
hearing these stories, everything inside me screams that it is unrealistic and
nearly impossible for them to not eat anything for over 40 days, after hearing
that only in great survival stories can people pull through. Gandhi himself did
fast for 21 days in the 1970’s, but 21 is a lot different than 40.
Taking
the opposite side of this in my brain was an event that took place about three
years ago. A good friend of my family was diagnosed with stage four cancer in
her uterus. She, along with all her friends and family, were greatly shocked
and she decided that the operation described as an option to her by her
oncologist was the best option. There was a tumor over 5 cm and they were
determined to try to remove it and then shock her system with rounds of
chemotherapy. Everything was set up for the surgery and two days before it was
to happen, she made a trip to a friend of our pastor. This friend was known to
be a healer. He told us that the Lord spoke everything through him and he was
no way responsible for the miracles that occur, but it was God himself who
casts them down. She went to see this healer with my grandma and went through
the ceremonial healing. I’m not sure exactly what happened at the healer’s
house but when she was on the operating table we were all waiting in the lobby.
The doctor came back out after only about 20 minutes with the craziest face on.
He told us that they started the procedure and when inside there was no tumor.
Not only was there no tumor, but they did a test and the cancer that was in
surrounding tissue was completely gone. The physicians stitched her back up and
came to tell us of this unbelievable miracle and after our friend was conscious
and able to be visited she looked at us and said, “It is as he said it would
be.”
This
proves to be an extreme example, but I do believe that there are certain cases
where the mind can over rule all science and nature. I am in full support of
modern medical practices and everything to go along with them, but I also have
a personal addition that the mind can over ride anything that it truly sets its
aim on, whether it be that the mind is disconnected or rather completely
connected to the body, that’s the true mystery.
Mind-Body Gap
After the debate in class on Thursday, I was provided with the perfect example of whether or not people should be allowed to make their own medical decisions. My grandfather has many (mostly minor) problems with his health, and he claims to know the "reasons" behind these medical issues. His feet hurt because he eats cheese, he has insomnia because he can only sleep sitting up, not laying down, etc. Over and over again doctors have tried to convince him that there are other reasons, more scientifically based. Yet, instead, my grandfather is influenced by conspiracy stories of medical companies, and random theories that people post about online. So, my grandma slips him the correct pills. I am a Cartesian - I believe that it there is a scientific reason behind his medical problems. If we let his mind win over his body it would only encourage him to make these connections related to his medical issues. On a side note, one question I was pondering after class (for the opposition) was if the individual is a doctor, would they then be able to be free to make their own decision? Since that was an argument, that you would need advice from someone who knows the medical field. So if an informed doctor was sick or something, would they then be able to freely make whatever medical decision they felt was necessary?
Blessed Theresa, a con artist or superhuman?
I think we would all like to think that it would be possible for one of us to lead an extraordinary life complete with a superhuman body. In our world today there is a huge fan base for superheros of every kind with their own set of superpowers. Fiction sometimes seems to blend over into reality and for those who look for it. Blessed Theresa is one such of these super-humans that I theorize blends the line of reality. Ignoring the religious stigmata for the purpose of narrowing my topic and briefly focusing on her diet, or lack thereof, for the time being. The Blessed Theresa was reported to have not eaten anything in last 37 years of her life and had not had a drop of water in the last 35 years of her life. As a college student this life sounds somewhat appealing, well maybe with one modification... I personally would trade in the perpetually sated apatite for a perpetual day, not having to sleep. On average everyone spends a third of their life in slumber, imagine how much more one could accomplish!
I'm not going to divulge whether or not I personally think if Blessed Theresa is a con artist or not. Rather I am just going to aim to say that Descartes' idea could shed some light here on how we perceive the issue. I would argue that Descartes' theory would be applied as follows. Looking at the devout followers and believers in miracles, and as a skeptic alike it's all about how they perceive the world. As the believer you would see Blessed Theresa as an incredibly religious person who, you would think that puts not importance of self but more on everyone else and God. Therefore Theresa was being graced by a closer connection with God and he was bestowing her a gift of being sustained on nothing but the communal hosts and wine, the body and blood of Jesus Christ. That would be enough evidence to them. Looking then at all the skeptics out there and examine how their perceptions differ. They would entirely look at the body's physiological needs and they would see that the body cannot physically sustain itself for 3 weeks let alone 35 years without food or water, therefore the Blessed Theresa must in fact be a con artist.
I'm not going to divulge whether or not I personally think if Blessed Theresa is a con artist or not. Rather I am just going to aim to say that Descartes' idea could shed some light here on how we perceive the issue. I would argue that Descartes' theory would be applied as follows. Looking at the devout followers and believers in miracles, and as a skeptic alike it's all about how they perceive the world. As the believer you would see Blessed Theresa as an incredibly religious person who, you would think that puts not importance of self but more on everyone else and God. Therefore Theresa was being graced by a closer connection with God and he was bestowing her a gift of being sustained on nothing but the communal hosts and wine, the body and blood of Jesus Christ. That would be enough evidence to them. Looking then at all the skeptics out there and examine how their perceptions differ. They would entirely look at the body's physiological needs and they would see that the body cannot physically sustain itself for 3 weeks let alone 35 years without food or water, therefore the Blessed Theresa must in fact be a con artist.
The DSM and what it means to me
I am a Cartesian, or at least I think I am. Much like how I believe in reality, for now. After receiving this prompt in which to find an example/ story within my life that fits has been influenced or adopted a somewhat Cartesian model was truly difficult. However, one of the examples Robin provided has always been on interest to me on a number of different fronts. The example that Robin provided was the DSM or the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual, which is used in the medical professions to diagnose mental disorders and other health issues. This manual is primary tool used to diagnose mental health issues and disorders and a critical tool for insurance companies to identify coverage needs for their customers. My interest in the DSM is in regards to Homosexuality, which up until 1970, was listed as a mental disorder. This posting will contain 3 main sections; first, my passion for sexuality and understanding its impacts, secondly, a brief Cartesian analysis, and finally, what ramifications the DSM has on our lives.
When I saw within the examples that Robin provided the DSM I knew immediately that was the subject matter for me. However, like I mentioned above there is one aspect of the DSM that interests me the most and that is the story and history of listing homosexuality as a mental disorder and later removing it as a mental disorder in the 1970s. As a heterosexual male my interest in Queer Theory was simultaneously stimulated in my sophomore year of college at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee. A few years before my sophomore year of college, my older brother “came out” and told the family he was gay. Not a surprise to any of us and we continued to love and support him just as we had before. That event “started” my interest, and then I took a class entitled “The Sociology of Sexuality” with a professor who was then a female and now a male (his name went from Carrie to Cary, like Cary Grant). A wonderful, stimulating course and now it is hard for me to not view humans and our actions as some form of sexual desire and response in almost everything we do. I view humans as primarily, sexual beings. So when I heard the story about the DSM once including homosexuality as a mental disorder and then receiving this prompt for the blog assignment I knew what I wanted to write about.
Our friend Descartes inhabits the DSM in many ways. The DSM was created as a pure, concise source of sound REASON based on medical knowledge and testing. The DSM becomes a pure unadulterated source to be the basis for scientific and medical knowledge. For years and years the medical community considered homosexuality as a medical and mental disorder, much like they did masturbation (80% of people in institutions were those that masturbated because they though you would lose your mind if you masturbated too much). As we know now, neither was true. However, the years went on and more and more progressive psychiatrists became to practice and have their say at conferences and outside social movements began to take shape the disorder of homosexuality was removed in 1973.
The effects the DSM and Descartes had on society remain profound. For decades, gay and lesbians across the country were jailed, killed, treated with electroshock therapy, and even killed. Our society and medical doctors were told and telling people it was wrong. The DSM provided a systematic, evidence, and rationale for discrimination. In many states it is still illegal for gays and lesbians to marry and many states allow people to be discriminated against based on sexual orientation in the workplace. The impacts can be seen everywhere within our society and culture.
Mind vs. Body, and medically related questions
I was recently interviewed for acceptance into medical school and among the usual “why do you want to be a doctor?” and “tell me of an ethical situation…”questions was: “What would you do if you don’t believe what a patient was telling you?” Yikes. No one tells you to prepare for that question.
Anyway, this question made me think of some of the topics introduced briefly in the debate such as addiction, eating disorders, and Munchausen syndrome, as well as the overarching question: should doctors have an authority over patient choice when they may have a mental disorder that causes them to harm themselves? It’s a tough and scary topic – the idea that the mind that is normally geared toward taking care of the body can turn on it and self-destruct. Personally, if I were to ever have any of these mental illnesses, I (as I am now) hope that a doctor would recognized them and gave me that treatment that I needed to get back to my normal (non-disordered) state. However, when one has something like this, how would a health practitioner know for sure?
Body Mind Intentional Split
I think a really great example of the "body/mind" divide lies within the concepts of "repressed memories." I have had a very minimal incident with a "repressed memory" but a member of my immediate family has, apparently, several incidents which she has only recently "remembered."
My experience, which I've mentioned before in a blog post, is what has been referred to as a "rage blackout." I have no recollection of screaming at a peer in my dorm cafeteria though it's something that happened, based on accounts from people that were with me at the time. I think this is a great example of the body/mind split because my mind actively disengaged from my body and senses... almost "state of nature" (shout out to Tommy Hobbes!) like. I didn't murder anyone but I think my "instincts" took over, if only for a very brief moment, and it's reminiscent of the Hobbes idea that everyone is essentially looking out for Numero Uno all the time.
What's especially interesting to me though, is the fact that I do not at all remember this incident except for a feeling of irritation towards this girl for a couple seconds. I'm intrigued by the Cartesian idea that my mind and body are two totally separate entities that chose to disengage from each other for a moment in order to protect something about my being (dignity? feeling of control?).
In the other case that I mentioned, a woman close to me was raped and she had eradicated the memory from her mind completely until recently. I don't know a lot about the situation or the memory repression, but it leads to questions about traumatic incidences and how people are able to deal with them. The Cartesian split can, in some ways, be damaging to people (i.e. I have to sit in a classroom all day because the "mind" is not only prized over the body but oftentimes regarded as the only part of a human being that matters), but it can also help people overcome tragedies in their lives- at least for awhile... until they have the mental or emotional stability or simply the time to ponder over scary things. But THAT begs the question about how dealing with traumatic stuff undoubtedly makes you a stronger person that has learned how to cope with "life events." In the case of the rape I don't know if the woman I know would be a "stronger" person than she is now (though it's hard to believe she could be stronger!) if she had always lived with knowing what happened to her or if she woudln't have been able to handle it and would've dropped out of school, ignored friends, or worse.
My experience, which I've mentioned before in a blog post, is what has been referred to as a "rage blackout." I have no recollection of screaming at a peer in my dorm cafeteria though it's something that happened, based on accounts from people that were with me at the time. I think this is a great example of the body/mind split because my mind actively disengaged from my body and senses... almost "state of nature" (shout out to Tommy Hobbes!) like. I didn't murder anyone but I think my "instincts" took over, if only for a very brief moment, and it's reminiscent of the Hobbes idea that everyone is essentially looking out for Numero Uno all the time.
What's especially interesting to me though, is the fact that I do not at all remember this incident except for a feeling of irritation towards this girl for a couple seconds. I'm intrigued by the Cartesian idea that my mind and body are two totally separate entities that chose to disengage from each other for a moment in order to protect something about my being (dignity? feeling of control?).
In the other case that I mentioned, a woman close to me was raped and she had eradicated the memory from her mind completely until recently. I don't know a lot about the situation or the memory repression, but it leads to questions about traumatic incidences and how people are able to deal with them. The Cartesian split can, in some ways, be damaging to people (i.e. I have to sit in a classroom all day because the "mind" is not only prized over the body but oftentimes regarded as the only part of a human being that matters), but it can also help people overcome tragedies in their lives- at least for awhile... until they have the mental or emotional stability or simply the time to ponder over scary things. But THAT begs the question about how dealing with traumatic stuff undoubtedly makes you a stronger person that has learned how to cope with "life events." In the case of the rape I don't know if the woman I know would be a "stronger" person than she is now (though it's hard to believe she could be stronger!) if she had always lived with knowing what happened to her or if she woudln't have been able to handle it and would've dropped out of school, ignored friends, or worse.
Hypnosis
At they after party of my senior prom, the organizers had hired a hypnotist. We all could participate in this "test" to see how "able" we were to get hypnotized that night. The test was to clasp our hand above our heads while the hypnotist said some relaxing words. Well before all of this, a friend next to me had told me that in order to get hypnotized, you have to be able to focus just on being hypnotized and nothing else. I thought this would be impossible for me, as I always have a billion thoughts running through my head constantly. But, I was able to focus and passed the test. When the hypnotist brought a group of about 10 of us to the front of the room, I was getting pretty nervous, because I was afraid I would do something embarrassing in front of my entire class. But as the hypnotist brought us into a state of hypnosis, I was relaxed and trust me, I was in a deep hypnosis state. The group of us participated in a fake eating contest, thought we were jello, and talked on our shoes like they were a phone, among a lot of other crazy things.
When we were "awoken" it was the weirdest feeling. I had remembered everything I did, but thought to myself, "what the heck was I doing"? I knew I had complete control over my body, but at the same time, I felt like I had no control over what I was doing. It was almost like everything that thy hypnotist told me to do, I did it, and there was no other option not to listen to him. But, if he were to tell me to do something completely inappropriate, I am fully confident that I wouldn't have, that I knew the social limits. Hypnosis was the weirdest thing that I have experienced, and it is really something you don't quite understand until it happens to you. It felt like my mind was separated from my body.
I still ask myself today what the heck was going on in my brain during that 20 or so minutes. It makes me question, and perhaps very confused, on how Descartes would view hypnotism. Why did my entire body feel like it had no bones in it when we were acting like jello? Why did I use my shoe and talk on it like it was no big deal? My mind was controlling everything that my body did. But, it did this in a way without thinking about it. It was almost like actions without thought. But I knew where to draw the line if something was inappropriate, and that is what confuses me.
I think that ethics played a large role in determining what I could do vs. what I couldn't do. My brain automatically passed something through to my actions if I subconsciously knew it was okay, but my brain would have caught something it knew wasn't right. Being hypnotized opened up a part of my brain for a bit that I never knew existed, and hasn't been touched since. Today, as hypnosis is being used more and more for a more holistic treatment of various diseases isolates this area into almost brainwashing yourself to believe something. The scary thing is, it has actually been shown to work. Hypnosis shows that the mind can control the body if you let it. Hypnosis will make you believe anything is possible, and your body will listen to what the brain is saying. I haven't done much research on how hypnosis works, but it never ceases to amaze me what we can subconsciously be capable of.
When we were "awoken" it was the weirdest feeling. I had remembered everything I did, but thought to myself, "what the heck was I doing"? I knew I had complete control over my body, but at the same time, I felt like I had no control over what I was doing. It was almost like everything that thy hypnotist told me to do, I did it, and there was no other option not to listen to him. But, if he were to tell me to do something completely inappropriate, I am fully confident that I wouldn't have, that I knew the social limits. Hypnosis was the weirdest thing that I have experienced, and it is really something you don't quite understand until it happens to you. It felt like my mind was separated from my body.
I still ask myself today what the heck was going on in my brain during that 20 or so minutes. It makes me question, and perhaps very confused, on how Descartes would view hypnotism. Why did my entire body feel like it had no bones in it when we were acting like jello? Why did I use my shoe and talk on it like it was no big deal? My mind was controlling everything that my body did. But, it did this in a way without thinking about it. It was almost like actions without thought. But I knew where to draw the line if something was inappropriate, and that is what confuses me.
I think that ethics played a large role in determining what I could do vs. what I couldn't do. My brain automatically passed something through to my actions if I subconsciously knew it was okay, but my brain would have caught something it knew wasn't right. Being hypnotized opened up a part of my brain for a bit that I never knew existed, and hasn't been touched since. Today, as hypnosis is being used more and more for a more holistic treatment of various diseases isolates this area into almost brainwashing yourself to believe something. The scary thing is, it has actually been shown to work. Hypnosis shows that the mind can control the body if you let it. Hypnosis will make you believe anything is possible, and your body will listen to what the brain is saying. I haven't done much research on how hypnosis works, but it never ceases to amaze me what we can subconsciously be capable of.
Blessed Therese's Cold Hard Facts
In the video of Blessed Therese (or Teresa according to some sources) Neumann that we watched in class, why was the video concluded with facts? In the context of something that is deemed religious and beyond facts, why was there the need for them in this video?
This video appeals to our 'Cartesian' view of the world where facts get us to the "Truth". Religion, as how I was taught from a young age by Lutherans, is a belief system. Whenever I used to play devils advocate with religious authorities in my church, I always used reasons and scientific facts of the non-existence of god. They replied usually with some variation of a theme that god worked in ways that did not follow the ways of reason. They said you couldn't explicitly prove god's existence through science and such. It's more like something that you feel.
I don't think the church that I went to quite held the universal modern christian perspective of science and reason but I think it provides interesting grounds to think about. If Blessed Therese's stigmata's were truly something that happened and were a religious experience, why does there need to justification in the form of reason for it? I feel like christianity changed a lot after the enlightenment and even more so today, to account for rationalism, and science. Christianity "made" the prerequisites as to what a saint is. It's almost like a checklist. Did they meet these requirements? No food? No water? Rigidity or stink after death? OK. She's a saint. It's devoid of all feeling.
Josef Hanauer, a critic of Therese Neumann which he claims her to be a sham, tries to bring to focus nobody actually ever saw her bleeding. Why did they? Can't people just believe because that's what their religious beliefs entitle? Can't they believe in the feelings that Therese provokes? Those feelings are real. I felt many nerves in my body lighten up and made me want to squirm (Cartesian I know). I couldn't even keep my eyes on her the first round of viewing the video. Whether I believe in Therese's story or not does not take into consideration of my feelings. I believe she is a sham. But what of it?
Her beatification was a result of 40,000 person signed petition. Not explicitly by the Roman Catholic Church. A political or social result? Therese's story is a perplexing one where reason is the architect. When politics and emotions enter the domain it seems to make the stars disperse and the constellations appear (if you want them to, Cartesians). How does she make you feel? What politics does she represent?
"One of the reasons I am here on earth today is to prove that man can live by God's invisible light, and not by food only." - Therese Neumann
Mind Body dualism
Man was I excited after our debate on Thursday so much talking about mind-body splits going on
Just this past weekend, I was visiting my boyfriend in Maryland with his family. His mom is a
dentist and provided me with a perfect example of Decartes Mind-
Body dualism. While trying to suck up to my boyfriends mom I found myself discussing cosmetic dentistry…
right down the alley of interests for a communications major.
Anyways, She shared a story about a patient who had decided that she no longer felt the need to brush her
teeth…nasty. Gross right? She was so fixated on this practice. My boyfriends mother being a successful and
well known dentist did everything she could to influence the woman to keep good dental hygiene. This is a
perfect example of Mind-Body dualism. We have discussed in class many times about people hacking their
legs off or hacking their nose off because they simply do not like them anymore. The patient’s mind was
convinced that brushing her teeth was not natural, but her body was now put at extremely high risk for tooth
discoloring, gum cancer, and enamel decay. She thought that since in classical times Colgate was not
available…or much less invented. It was not necessary to brush. In an effort to prove to this woman’s mind,
my boyfriend’s mom and her surrounding dental hygienists used science and proven facts to convince this
woman that her mind was in the wrong and that she should listen to her body.
The experience of Mind-Body dualism can lead to self-destruction if you do not have someone
watching out for you. In the patient’s case, her mind did not overpower her body because of proven
scientific facts and professionals in the field of dentistry. Science 1, Mind 0, just in time before some serious
dental emergencies like tooth extractions. Yes, it is amazing all the complicated terminology you can learn
while at dinner with a dentist!
Just this past weekend, I was visiting my boyfriend in Maryland with his family. His mom is a
dentist and provided me with a perfect example of Decartes Mind-
Body dualism. While trying to suck up to my boyfriends mom I found myself discussing cosmetic dentistry…
right down the alley of interests for a communications major.
Anyways, She shared a story about a patient who had decided that she no longer felt the need to brush her
teeth…nasty. Gross right? She was so fixated on this practice. My boyfriends mother being a successful and
well known dentist did everything she could to influence the woman to keep good dental hygiene. This is a
perfect example of Mind-Body dualism. We have discussed in class many times about people hacking their
legs off or hacking their nose off because they simply do not like them anymore. The patient’s mind was
convinced that brushing her teeth was not natural, but her body was now put at extremely high risk for tooth
discoloring, gum cancer, and enamel decay. She thought that since in classical times Colgate was not
available…or much less invented. It was not necessary to brush. In an effort to prove to this woman’s mind,
my boyfriend’s mom and her surrounding dental hygienists used science and proven facts to convince this
woman that her mind was in the wrong and that she should listen to her body.
The experience of Mind-Body dualism can lead to self-destruction if you do not have someone
watching out for you. In the patient’s case, her mind did not overpower her body because of proven
scientific facts and professionals in the field of dentistry. Science 1, Mind 0, just in time before some serious
dental emergencies like tooth extractions. Yes, it is amazing all the complicated terminology you can learn
while at dinner with a dentist!
Does a change in the body = a change in the mind?
I would like to discuss something that I think could be categorized along with apotemnophilia; something that I can best described as body mortification.
I wish there was another term to describe this better because I do not want it to be confused with the practice of body mortification of the flesh that was practiced by the Roman Catholic Church. Instead, I mean cutting the flesh in a way that allows one to remember that moment in his/her life. A way to recognize that something, whether it be traumatic or depressing even happy happened within one's life and it has been overcome or is recovering through the act of cutting. It is not the act of punishing the self but an act of recovering, recognition and a process of remembering as well as be a sign in order to remember what has happened.
It is very important that this is also not confused with such stories like one hears about teenagers cutting themselves because of depression and attempt for attention or suicide.
This type of body mortification has been described to me as a spiritual passage that is not religious as in means of being devoted to another God or higher being. It is a spiritual passage in being devoted to oneself.
This is a hard process to describe because there are many layers to this act of cutting. As I describe it, I feel like I am not doing it justice for what it represents. I feel as though I am unable to because as Descartes describes in Meditation 2, part 13; language is obstructing my perception and easily guides me into error.
Now, these cuts are neither small nor shallow. They are extremely deep and often long (thought they can be short) in order to make scars appear. As I said before, this is a process of recognition and remembering. The scar that forms over the cut is made and therefore remembrance can take place.
This is something I have first hand experience with, not because I engage in these acts myself, but because I have friends that do or once did. It was a horrifying experience to be apart of as I was continually concerned about the mental and physical well being of my friends.
These cuts are not random, they are strategically placed in a specific design on a specific part of the body. When fresh, they appear shocking, horrifying heartbreaking, unpleasant and traumatic. Once scarred over, the design is identifiable.
I also want to state, that what I am talking about is not the scarification by a professional, or a tattoo-type artist. These cuts are performed by the individual onto his/herself.
This type of body mortification is not something that is very common and is definitely not a a usual or society acceptable form of spiritual behavior.
My friends (who must remain nameless and will instead be referred to as 'X' and 'Y') get starred at constantly for their scars, and even more so when their cuts are not yet scarred. It appears to others that something might be wrong with them. Something must be going on mentally in order for them to allow themselves to feel and to inflict their own bodies with so much pain. Their mental state is questioned just as those who want to be amputated.
I have to ask though, why must there be something wrong with them mentally? Why is it not okay to want to modify one's own body in a way that doesn't seem normal. And therefore I must ask, what is normal anyway? But now I am getting off topic. To stay on task I want to refer back to Descartes' Meditation #2. Descartes talks a lot about parts of the body (eyes, hands, arms, legs, etc.) and existence. He comes to a point though that it is when the mind is thinking that the person exists. Descartes questions if existence is dependent on such objects (eyes, hands, arms, legs, etc.) (Meditation 2, part 3) and I question this also and my answer is that one's existence is not dependent on such objects. Therefore I question if something is lost from one's mind if an object goes missing from one's body. I don't think this is so.
To jump back for a moment to my friends, both of them, did not have the happiest of lives growing up. I think they found a connection in this way. Both suffered from families with histories of drug and alcohol addiction, parental separation, lack of being nurtured, lack of home stability etc. I bring this up because this is what people considered when they first started making the cuts into their skin. Their backgrounds were continually analyzed as well as their relationship with each other. Did X have a power relationship over Y? Was X making Y do this because X wanted to? Y had a history with cutting herself when she was younger, could this trigger depression again? Had depression settled in? Was this a means of gaining parental attention? The answer to every question was "no".
By coming to the conclusion that if there is a want for the body to be changed in perhaps what is seen to be violent against one's own body and therefore something is violent or wrong with one's mind is stating that mind and body are always connected. That change in one = change in the other. I would like to argue though that it depends on the way one goes through the process of the change, that society may see the person to remain the "same" as everyone else or become "different". For example if someone loses a limb in an accident, nothing is usually seen to be lost within the mind especially if the person remains happy or becomes happier after the accident. But if a person wants to willingly lose a limb or willingly modify one's body that is not considered normal (by normal modification I mean body piercing, tattoos, muscle building, muscle flexibility, etc.) that person's mind is questioned as well as the ability to remain normal. Western society has made us believe that the objects that "makeup" our bodies are things that we need in order to live. Why would anyone willingly "hurt" themselves? This is naturally difficult for us to understand.
I must say though, my friends are two of the happiest people I know. They are a partnership and have two of the most beautiful, open and understanding souls and minds I know. No, nothing has been lost from their minds from their mortification, if anything, much more has been gained.
I wish there was another term to describe this better because I do not want it to be confused with the practice of body mortification of the flesh that was practiced by the Roman Catholic Church. Instead, I mean cutting the flesh in a way that allows one to remember that moment in his/her life. A way to recognize that something, whether it be traumatic or depressing even happy happened within one's life and it has been overcome or is recovering through the act of cutting. It is not the act of punishing the self but an act of recovering, recognition and a process of remembering as well as be a sign in order to remember what has happened.
It is very important that this is also not confused with such stories like one hears about teenagers cutting themselves because of depression and attempt for attention or suicide.
This type of body mortification has been described to me as a spiritual passage that is not religious as in means of being devoted to another God or higher being. It is a spiritual passage in being devoted to oneself.
This is a hard process to describe because there are many layers to this act of cutting. As I describe it, I feel like I am not doing it justice for what it represents. I feel as though I am unable to because as Descartes describes in Meditation 2, part 13; language is obstructing my perception and easily guides me into error.
Now, these cuts are neither small nor shallow. They are extremely deep and often long (thought they can be short) in order to make scars appear. As I said before, this is a process of recognition and remembering. The scar that forms over the cut is made and therefore remembrance can take place.
This is something I have first hand experience with, not because I engage in these acts myself, but because I have friends that do or once did. It was a horrifying experience to be apart of as I was continually concerned about the mental and physical well being of my friends.
These cuts are not random, they are strategically placed in a specific design on a specific part of the body. When fresh, they appear shocking, horrifying heartbreaking, unpleasant and traumatic. Once scarred over, the design is identifiable.
I also want to state, that what I am talking about is not the scarification by a professional, or a tattoo-type artist. These cuts are performed by the individual onto his/herself.
This type of body mortification is not something that is very common and is definitely not a a usual or society acceptable form of spiritual behavior.
My friends (who must remain nameless and will instead be referred to as 'X' and 'Y') get starred at constantly for their scars, and even more so when their cuts are not yet scarred. It appears to others that something might be wrong with them. Something must be going on mentally in order for them to allow themselves to feel and to inflict their own bodies with so much pain. Their mental state is questioned just as those who want to be amputated.
I have to ask though, why must there be something wrong with them mentally? Why is it not okay to want to modify one's own body in a way that doesn't seem normal. And therefore I must ask, what is normal anyway? But now I am getting off topic. To stay on task I want to refer back to Descartes' Meditation #2. Descartes talks a lot about parts of the body (eyes, hands, arms, legs, etc.) and existence. He comes to a point though that it is when the mind is thinking that the person exists. Descartes questions if existence is dependent on such objects (eyes, hands, arms, legs, etc.) (Meditation 2, part 3) and I question this also and my answer is that one's existence is not dependent on such objects. Therefore I question if something is lost from one's mind if an object goes missing from one's body. I don't think this is so.
To jump back for a moment to my friends, both of them, did not have the happiest of lives growing up. I think they found a connection in this way. Both suffered from families with histories of drug and alcohol addiction, parental separation, lack of being nurtured, lack of home stability etc. I bring this up because this is what people considered when they first started making the cuts into their skin. Their backgrounds were continually analyzed as well as their relationship with each other. Did X have a power relationship over Y? Was X making Y do this because X wanted to? Y had a history with cutting herself when she was younger, could this trigger depression again? Had depression settled in? Was this a means of gaining parental attention? The answer to every question was "no".
By coming to the conclusion that if there is a want for the body to be changed in perhaps what is seen to be violent against one's own body and therefore something is violent or wrong with one's mind is stating that mind and body are always connected. That change in one = change in the other. I would like to argue though that it depends on the way one goes through the process of the change, that society may see the person to remain the "same" as everyone else or become "different". For example if someone loses a limb in an accident, nothing is usually seen to be lost within the mind especially if the person remains happy or becomes happier after the accident. But if a person wants to willingly lose a limb or willingly modify one's body that is not considered normal (by normal modification I mean body piercing, tattoos, muscle building, muscle flexibility, etc.) that person's mind is questioned as well as the ability to remain normal. Western society has made us believe that the objects that "makeup" our bodies are things that we need in order to live. Why would anyone willingly "hurt" themselves? This is naturally difficult for us to understand.
I must say though, my friends are two of the happiest people I know. They are a partnership and have two of the most beautiful, open and understanding souls and minds I know. No, nothing has been lost from their minds from their mortification, if anything, much more has been gained.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)