Why might critical theorists be interested in bodies?
“These methods, which made possible the meticulous control of the operations of the body, which assured the constant subjection of its forces and imposed upon them a relation of docility-utility, might be called disciplines.”
Michel Foucault (Discipline and Punish, 1975)
“Know thyself”. This ancient greek aphorism is widely known, and it stuck because it encloses the idea that in order for one to understand what it means to be human; what it means to be alive, one must understand the physical body. Bodies determine one’s individuality. They are constantly being measured, weighted, and most importantly labelled; thus, making them docile and easier to control. Critical theorists are interested in bodies because they allow us to understand how power works. How is the body disciplined? How is the mind disciplined? How are bodies made to conform? How does one become themselves? To answer these questions, one just has to look at themselves in relation to the society they live in to understand that we are constantly being written on and that we are subjects to a subtle, meticulous, and insidious power.
Power is portrayed as repressive, yet it is productive. It is constantly homogenizing, naturalizing, normalizing, and regulating gaze. Power is imprinted on our bodies. Foucault argues that we live in docile bodies, meaning that our bodies are produced and thus “may be subjected, transformed, and improved” (Foucault 136). At the end of the 18th century, biopolitics materialized and alongside it came all of the structures, approaches, and strategies that govern human life. So, how are we subjected? How are we transformed? How are we shaped physically and intellectually? One begins by looking at 18th century Europe and the emergence of biopolitics. Until then, sexual relations were administered by three codes: canonical law, the christian pastoral, and civil law. Many sexual crimes that took place outside of marriage were prohibited and upheld by these three codes, but they focused mainly on the married, heterosexual couple (Foucault 37). There were few important distinctions made by these codes between the ways in which one could violate the rules of proper, married, sexual conduct; Foucault suggests, and that the married couple had to deal with intrusions of authorities who in turn had to prove that the couple had an adequately reproductive relationship. Nevertheless, the order of things began to change with “The Incitement to Discourse” (Foucault 17) which left the married couple alone with increasingly more privacy. In turn; however, all of this attention was turned towards other, “unnatural” expressions of sexuality. A need to compile detailed taxonomies of all of these different expressions was found, which made the discourse of modern sexuality to be less interested in what people did, but rather in what they were. This formed a new range of people, an “other”, who were solely described and defined by their aberrant sexuality. 19th century science required these “others'' to be close-at-hand for very physical medical studies rather than suppressing these kinds of sexualities. Medical discourse began to associate a person's entire personality in relation to their “perverse behaviour”, drawing up corresponding personages to match habitual perverse behaviour. The figure of the homosexual was introduced in the 19th century and became subject to an invasive regime of institutional control.
Bodies became docile, imprinted on, malleable, and shaped by society’s and individual’s idea of what is natural and normal. Most importantly, this “docillification” of bodies made them controllable. When sexuality became categorized, it became a way for an individual to be surveyed and self-survey themselves, because we are always thinking of ourselves in relation to others. Just as Deleuze argues, “a body affects other bodies, or is affected by other bodies; it is this capacity for affecting and being affected that also defines a body in its individuality” ( 123). Putting control over sexual desire means putting control over our bodies, which essentially means control over a person as whole along with the individuals who surround the subject. One is no longer someone who has sexual desire, one becomes “A Homosexual” an “Other”. You get categorized, easier to control. Biopower and biopolitics have led “our narcissistic and visually oriented society” (Bordo, 2241) to become obsessed with bodies, the way they look, and the idea of a “perfect body”. We have developed into a species which is utterly captivated, dominated, and consumed by the aesthetic. So much so that we are constantly constantly practicing what is known as biological essentialism. We reduce and essentialize. We judge . We have this set of beliefs that everything must have a set of characteristics which makes them be. We task science and philosophy in their discovery and their interpretation, and this leads to a doctrine that believes essence comes prior to existence. These become the ways in which we look and represent bodies. But one must ask, are there any effects that come with living under this over-excess of images, ideals and characters which are at all times representing us as bodies? One could argue that this is what makes people so quick to reduce a person based on ideas of their biology, which is a practice that is problematic. When women are expected to have to stay in the house and be naturally drawn to domestic aspects of life because they were born with an uterus whose prime feature is to be having children. That is biological essentialism. When a transexual person is denied the use of their preferred bathroom due to this one not being designed for the original “gender” they were born into and eventually leads to violence against transsexuals. That is biological essentialism. Biological essentialism becomes a weapon and one that is deeply ingrained in our societies and the way in which we relate to one another. It is a weapon used to force suppression and submissiveness of groups which are traditionally under privileged, specifically when talking about disabled persons and women. Suddenly, people start believing that they are programmed, and pre-determined, and hard wired in the womb, which leaves very little room for critical thinking, movement, and progression.
Biopower strives to make bodies useful and productive. It wants to make us form part of a system with rules, methods, and principles of behaviour to make bodies obedient and effective. Nevertheless, once again we must ask, how does it achieve this? It does this through norm and through a false conception that there is such a thing as a “beautiful”, a “normal”, and a “natural” and that we must try to fit that mold. Going back to Deleuze’s quote, bodies take up space, they are surrounded by other bodies, and are conceptualized in relation to these other bodies. There exists a politics of visibility from which we live under. Modeled after the architectural design of the panopticon, our society works very much like one. This means that we are constantly adjusting our behaviours through the eyes of others. This leads to inevitable self-regulation because we are constantly presenting ourselves with the idea that others are watching in the back of our mind. To consider it in the words of Marx, the “human essence is no abstraction inherent in each single individual. In its reality, it is the ensemble of social relations.” Suddenly, the architectural model that is the panopticon turns to flesh and bones, essentially becoming us. We become the panopticon, because even when others aren’t watching, we always are and always will be.
We are our bodies, they are inescapable, and critical theorists know this. The one thing that has been with us since the beginning of our existence and has accompanied us all the way through to today. The body is docile, obedient, and pliant. It is a site of meaning that is constantly being written on. Disciplinary power is handled directly on our bodies because it is a site of expression. Culture and identity reside in it, but so does so much more. Through our bodies, we can either choose to conform or to resist norms, cultural expectations, and ideals imposed upon us. It is through systems of surveillance and the body is molded and disciplined. By analysing them we can either come to see bodies as products of social constraint and construction, or of the critical analysis and discourse within which it is discussed and analysed.
