Give me a moment, please. I had an excellent article featuring a hell of a bunch of references on this very topic...
I wrote an anthropology paper my last semester at Transylvania entitled "
freak! Somatic and Psychopathological Politics Through Narrative in the Era of Postmodern Alienation and De-Humanity." (Betcha can't say
that three times fast.)
I'll just give you guys some highlights, beginning with some sentiments that we have covered and discussed in this thread so far.
- Our society in particular has such a strong and relatively set of acceptable norms and desirable appearances, and judging by the consistency and the frequency with which images of beauty or acceptable practice (i.e., fit bodies, the stable if not nuclear family life, uncompromised successes, Suburbia), the trend shows no signs of slowing down[sup]1[/sup].
- Political and institutional leaders have such a way with labelling, it's uncanny. Once the powers that be dictate acceptable and unacceptable models of behaviors, models, images... what follows is an introduction to the art of discreditation and demonization. Those words are strong, yes, but across history, those in power create the framework for acceptable actions and those without power either follow suit or deviate to their own paths. Deviation from the norm's fine; just don't expect to get away with it without having your transgressions called into constant question.
- Perhaps a poignant support point: To those who self-identify as homosexual, whether you like it or not, you have a daily reminder of your sexuality for the rest of your life. Whether you experience life as an out and comfortable homosexual or as someone who tries his or her damnedest to avoid the pressure; whether you care about your right to marry or have relations; whether you identify best with the guys on "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy" or your beer-drinking buddies at the local tavern who keep it to themselves... society embeds the family life and the American Dream in heterosexuality, end of story. Gay visibility is a perpetual threat to someone out there in the world; and judging by recent statistics, if anything, America's going through its own backlash.
- Segue: "Freaks" (in this case, people who willingly undergo extreme body modification) go through the same invisibility/threat/demonized experience, particularly felt through exclusion and ridicule. DMW's, Dag's, 10's reactions -- perfect examples. You guys immediately reacted with disgust; and, in DMW's case, you took my subsequent interrogation as a threat to your right to opinionate. Either way, you, as participants of an accepted limited-modification status -- you guys might have tattooes or piercings of your own, hit the gym, diet fastidiously, whatever -- show through aesthetic exclusion that what these guys do with their dick and balls... that's just gross!
But,
why do reactions sound that way? What's so "gross" about it? Well, it seems we hit the wall here; we can accept, personally (as we tend to speak for ourselves and not as a normalized-participant group), that we find the practices unattractive; we wouldn't scorn them for what they do to their own bodies, but still, we shudder and cringe.
Now, backtrack...
that we find the practices unattractive; we wouldn't scorn them for what they do to their own bodies...
Well, it's most certainly not an issue of psychopathology, as in the labellist's self-ascertained right to call what these guys do to their bodies, "freakish." Favazza sees such name-calling as a tradition founded in ignorance[sup]2[/sup] -- literally -- and Meyers finds the medical-septic reaction[sup]3[/sup] to practices as an effective component in delegitimizing the importance and the investment in one's "body projects."[sup]4[/sup] In other words, these people participate in such extreme forms of modification as Longhornjok cited in his past for "many, many reasons." My essay connected several narratives on the theme of
control: In a rapidly growing society marked by techno-industrial power and a depersonalized relationship with our work, our lives, and each other, body modification is a means by which people make sense of their own limits, enduring experiences, and revitalizating personal order with an increasingly disorderly world[sup]5[/sup]. The BMEs find solidarity and strength, personal triumph, [sup]6[/sup] in their simultaneous isolation and scrutinization by the "norms" and in sharing the depth and richness of their particular symbolic efforts.
Works Referenced
[sup]1[/sup] Camphausen, Rufus C.
Return of the Tribal: A Celebration of Body Adornment. Park Street Press: Rochester, 1997.
[sup]2[/sup] Favazza, Armando R.
Bodies Under Siege: Self-Mutilation and Body Modification in Culture
and Psychiatry. 2nd ed. Johns Hopkins University Press: Baltimore, 1996.
[sup]3[/sup] Myers, James. "Nonmainstream Body Modification: Genital Piercing, Branding, Burning, and
Cutting."
Journal of Contemporary Ethnography. vol. 21, issue 3. (267+).
[sup]4[/sup] Featherstone, Mike. "Body Modification: An Introduction."
Body and Society. Sage Publications: London, 1999.
[sup]5[/sup]
Feminism and Philosophy: Essential Readings in Theory, Reinterpretation, and Application. Eds. Nancy Tuana and Rosemarie Tong. Westview Press: Boulder, 1995.
[sup]6[/sup] Gans, Eric. "The Body Sacrificial."
The Body Aesthetic: From Fine Art to Body Modification. Ed. Tobin Siebers. University of Michigan Press: Ann Arbor, 2000.
(If you want to read my report to learn more about the phenomenon, just let me know. I'll e-mail it to you.)
