Summary of the Readings
Author’s Main Point
Biss’s (2005) main point is the difficulty of rating pain on a scale that has a zero reading as a measure of no suffering. She equates the number 0 to Christ incarnate, points out the inadequacy of the rating, and explains the fallacy of absolutes. Wendell (1993) contends that the feminist theory dwells on “alienation of the self” and feminine and masculine body differences but ignores bodily suffering (p. 328). On their part, Shildrick and Price (1996) argue that ability/disability is a historic, social, and cultural construct for marking dissimilarities associated with the body.
Citations from the Readings
Biss (2005) expresses her own thoughts on pain measurement. She refers to different concepts, including the Fahrenheit and Celsius scales and Dante’s poem, among others. In her article, Wendell (1993) quotes feminists, such as Dona Haraway, and authors writing on disability and pain. Shildrick and Price (1996) cite the works of postmodernism theorists like Sedgwick, Foucault, and Shakespeare to support their argument.
Outline of the Argument
Biss’s (2005) central argument is outlined below.
- Zero as an incomprehensible construct – a naught and a quantity simultaneously like Christ (God incarnate)
- Zero on a pain scale is linked to fallacies – rating one’s suffering is problematic
- Fahrenheit, Celsius, Kelvin, and Beaufort scales have inaccuracies related to absolute zero measurements
- Calculus and prime numbers are as abstract as rating one’s pain
Wendell’s (1993) argument is summarized below.
- Feminist theory alienates bodily experience
- Bodily consciousness arises during ailment or disability
- Transcendence or disengagement of oneself from the body is “a luxury of the able-bodied”, not the disabled (Wendell, 1993, p. 328).
Shildrick and Price’s (1996) argument can be outlined as follows:
- Postmodernism can help deconstruct identity and reveal how disability is socially and culturally constructed
- Disability is a historic, social, and cultural construct meant to depict bodily deformities as problematic
- A constant “reiteration of a set of norms” has led to naturalization of the abled/disabled view of the body (Shildrick & Price, 1996, p. 433).
Personal Reflection/Understanding of the Material
My understanding of the material is that pain sensation is a subjective experience, and therefore, quantifying it on a scale is prone to error. Further, learning to live with bodily limitations requires the disabled to transcend or accept their sufferings. Disability, in a social sense, emerges from the repetitive practice of labeling the body as abled or disabled.
Reactions, Opinions, and Thoughts
I concur with Biss’s (2005) argument is that there is no absolute truth. In my opinion, pain is a subjective feeling that cannot be quantified as a zero sensation. I also agree with the view that ability/disability is a historical, social, and cultural construct. In some cultures, psychological disorders are not regarded as a mental disability but as a supernatural punishment for sin. I also believe that the disabled must transcend their bodily limitations to gain social acceptability, avoid stigma, and receive disability benefits.
Discussion Question
How can a disabled person ‘transcend’ his/her disability in conditions of social stigma?
References
Biss, E. (2005). The pain scale.Seneca Review, 35(1), 170-177. Web.
Shildrick, M., & Price, J. (1996). Breaking the boundaries of the broken body. Body & Society, 2(4), 93-113. Web.
Wendell, S. (1993). Feminism, disability, and transcendence of the body. Canadian Women Studies, 13(4), 324-333. Web.