Introduction
Body alteration or otherwise body modification involves the deliberate changing of one’s natural composition. There are many reasons to carry out body modification among them being aesthetics, marking a rite of passage among some cultures, portrayal of certain sexual enhancements, displaying body arts, and depicting affiliation to certain membership groups among others.
Body modifications take a variety of forms including plastic surgery, socially acceptable decorations, for instance ear piercing, and religious rites of passage, for instance circumcision among others. Today, types of body modifications have expanded to include practices such as cosmetic surgery and body implants.
From a sociological perspective, some practices of body modifications have attracted many controversies. Some of these controversies are akin to the notion of “attempting to beautify the natural form of a body often leading to charges of disfiguration and mutilation” (Atkinson, 2004, p.125).
Consequently, critics of body modifications that encompass extreme alterations of the natural form of the human body as indicative of symptoms of dysmorphic disorder, evidence of some mental illness, or even a portrayal of some unchecked sanity. Indeed, unlicensed cosmetic surgeries are often considered illegal in many nations since they threaten the lives of their wearers.
From the perspective of non-universal acceptability of some forms of body modifications, this study examines and evaluates how body modification practices have been understood as acts of inscription. Besides, the study points out why such modifications are understood as practices of difference. An effort is also made to discuss what happens when people read about body modifications with the aim of analysing how they represent embodied experiences within sociology.
Understanding Body Modifications as acts of Inscription
Body modifications can act as a means of inscribing people’s experiences and moments in life that one may not wish to forget. For instance, inscription of love on one’s body may act as a constant reminder of emotional attachment to certain people. Indeed, people have their arms inscribed with the names of their lovers and demised close family members such as their mothers, sisters, brothers, or even their fathers among others. By so doing, it means that an inscribed tattoo reminds one’s of the demise of close relative in a physical form of a body modification.
Apart from the inscription of love, some people have had their bodies inscribed with names of places across the globe where they have ever visited at particular times.
A good example of such a scenario is described by the Art of Listening (2007) with a man having “his arms and chest bearing the name of a place: Burma, Singapore, and Malaysia” (p.71). Furthermore, according to the Art of Listening (2007), body modifications can be incredible mechanisms of showing inscriptions that tell the whole lot of one’s eulogy in a more real and exhaustive manner.
This assertion is implied by the Art of Listening (2007) when it describes the man as having “on his right arm a figure of an Indian woman dancing with her hands clasped together above her head with her skin darkened by the tattooist’s ink” (p.71). Surprisingly, the a man also has a tattoo that shows how his voyage came to an end through inscription as if his body was a canvas for the depiction of the most important life events encountered in the voiceless patient’s life.
The above arguments introduce the deeply seated attachments for body modifications through tattoos to life’s events and certain material possessions to which the wearer of the tattoos is deeply attached. This case suggests that body inscriptions can be predominantly understood as acts of inscriptions.
For instance, in the history of Europe and Britain, tattooing as an inscription is a well-developed culture. Specifically, a myriad of historians have shown with success that there is a connection between the penal code coupled with property rights with tattoos won by the Celts, Greeks, and even among Romans (Atkinson, 2004).
Such relationships appear also to be a history characteristic of all people irrespective of their cultural or religious affiliations. For instance, among the Romans, some Christians inscribe themselves with body modifications carrying the image of Christ as a way of speaking volumes of the amount of devotion they have towards Him.
There also exists a stringent connection between body inscriptions with pilgrimages. For example, as the Art of Listening (2007) argues, “early modern pilgrims to Palestine were tattooed with Christian symbols available in Jerusalem…they brought their marked bodies home as evidence of their sacred travel” (p.72). Elsewhere, a similar practice also took place amongst pilgrimage to various places such as Loreto, Italy, during the 16th century.
The argument here is that body modifications can be understood as inscriptions of events and life experiences that people would like to be forever embedded in their physical forms such that other people would recognise such experiences while they see the body modifications. In the physical state, it becomes possible to evidence experiences through some more tangible formats as opposed to evidencing memories through a word of mouth.
The discussion of body modifications as a representation of inscriptions implies that people use their bodies to act as a canvas for displaying political coupled with cultural manipulations. It is perhaps also impossible to avoid body modifications.
This argument is perhaps imperative by considering, “a body is also directly involved in the political field…power relations have an immediate hold upon it…they invest in it, mark it, train it, torture it, force it to carry out tasks, to perform ceremonies, and to emit signs” (Art of Listening, 2007, p. 73).
To expand this argument, it is important to note that, during incidences such as military training or participation in wars, though involuntarily, human body is modified. People having such modifications have strong messages, which act as reminders of painful experiences magnificently inscribed in their bodies. This case implies that the human body is painted in totality by inscribed history either voluntarily or involuntarily.
Understanding Body Modification as acts of Difference
Literature on body modifications indicates that there are contrasting views concerning body alterations. One perspective point of view is that people should have a noble right to do whatever they want with their bodies in the attempt to make it different from the natural body.
In this context, Victoria (1994) reckons, “amidst an almost universal feeling of powerlessness to change the world, individuals are changing what they do have power over: their bodies” (p.19). In this context, it is crucial to note that representation of body modification as an act of difference implies that the permission to modify one’s body is a major milestone in enabling people to assert full control over their bodies.
To enhance this control, people are given noble opportunities to make choices on the manners through which they can make their bodies different from regular bodies. This provision enshrines and further suggests, “The notion of difference within the modified body” (Victoria, 1994, p.19). The resulting difference is portrayed by both embracement of the modifications by participants in the debate of body modifications and analysis of the implications of the modifications.
Although body adjustments are deeply rooted within the cultural histories of different people, their evolution has made them representative of differences in cultural shifts. In the modern day, communication is effected through different channels many of which do not require physical contact to be effective.
Body modification is perhaps one of the ways of enhancing this change since people’s affiliations can be effectively communicated in non-verbal ways through piercings and some form of tattoos. Victoria (1994) is also inclined to this line of argument by further informing, “body modifications are understood as ways of communicating individual and personal affiliations and as such is perceived as a conscious act of self-making” (p.22).
Arguably, therefore, body modification may be a representative of mental activities residing inside an individual. Such psychological conducts vary from one individual to another. Consequently, if body modifications can reflect these differences, it is arguable that they are a representation of differences between different people living with the society.
Stilwell (2009) describes body modifications as unusual. Essentially, this statement implies that they are different from the normal bodies in their natural state. Victoria (1994) further suggests that, via reflexive body techniques, “the creation of reflexive self includes activities from washing hair to being multiply pierced” (p.73). He deploys this assertion to conclude, “the reflexive self that body techniques help to construct, at least in relations to body modification practices, fall within familiar terms: modified body is made unusual” (p.22).
While the culture of body modifications may be deeply seated within the roots of certain cultural heritages, engagement in multiple body modifications, for instance, multiple ear piercing or multiple tattoos, suggests a shift from one set of cultural affiliation to another. Many scholars in socio-biology contend that having multiple body modifications is an unusual and statistically rare practice. Therefore, such practices can be classified as falling in the marginal zones.
Victoria (1994) supports the assertion, “many body modifications practices are indefinable through their marginality and their expressive differences from everyday life activities such as brushing teeth” (p.23). This argument suggests and supports the notion that a modified body is unusual. Hence, it is a representation of differences.
In the discussion of body modifications as acts of differences, it is crucial to evaluate the rhetoric of representation of individuality through body modifications as opposed to compliance to subscribe to collective ways of life determined by an individual’s culture. Indeed, the capacity of an individual to represent individuality is invoked for the purposes of fully expressing the intrinsic perspective of that person in a phenotypic manner.
This effort entails a revelation of what represents a real individual. For complete distinctions between persons to be made, an act of portrayal of differences is important. Without such differences, it is presumable that people are all similar. Mannerisms and ways of life are perhaps some of the ample mechanisms of displaying differences between people for which body modifications are essential for consideration as differentiation criteria.
Thus, body adjustments are a means for resonance of various images residing within an individual, which otherwise would remain in the silent mode. In the struggle to attain individual independence, behaving and thinking distinctively from other people are among the pivotal pillars for being one’s self.
The above argument is crucial by considering that body modifications have been argued by some scholars as attempts to be fashion-trend cautious. However, it is equally important to note that fashions are dynamic. Hence, their change is inevitable.
Unfortunately, when a person’s modification markings have been made, it is difficult to change them as new ways of body alterations emerge. Stilwell (2009) supports this line of view by asserting, “Once a commitment has been made, body modifications are difficult, costly, and sometimes impossible to remove” (p.23).
In this extent, obsessions with piercings and tattoos may be seen as mechanisms of portrayal of a decisive action to run away from pressures exerted by the forces of fashion. Although media may bombard people with permanent body modifications with new ads of fashion, people may escape the coercive force of media by ensuring that their bodies are marked permanently. This way, it becomes possible to mark differences between generations without feeling outdated.
What happens when people read body modifications?
Reading about body modifications gives rise to valid perceptions and reactions. From one perspective, “having a tattoo, or a pierced ear, is a moment when boundaries are breached, involving hurt and healing” (Art of Listening, 2007, p.73). This case implies that, whenever one hears of body modification, the immediate reaction that runs through the mind of an individual is the capacity to withstand deep pain.
Therefore, it appears that people having body modifications have an exceedingly higher ability to withstand situations involving alteration of their natural bodies. Now, it sounds incredible to infer that reading about body modifications creates the feeling that its procedure entails undergoing corporal experiences. Through such experiences, there is a change in the relationship between the internal and external components of the human body.
In this extent, Stilwell (2009) reckons that body modifications involve, “perforating the boundary between the internal and external so that the external becomes internal and the external becomes external” (p.23). Consequently, people reading about body modifications have the impression that, with the body modification technologies, the external and internal bodies of human beings have no boundaries.
One can read and analyse the presence of a body modification in an individual from the many contexts including trauma following the healing process associated with undergoing a body modification procedure and permanence among other ways. Nevertheless, an individual does not predominantly solicit for these associations. They do not necessarily emanate from an individual’s choice. For instance, undergoing some body modifications involving mutilations is not a choice.
As part of a society’s cultural norms, society advocates and ensures that body modifications procedures are enforced. One of the emerging central questions that a reader of literature on the body modifications is whether it is appropriate for people to withstand huge extents of pains, which would otherwise be avoided. Unfortunately, the human body is subject to social, political, and cultural manipulations.
Arguments in support of body modifications may be interpreted to mean that the natural form of the human body is not complete. Many people would be immensely interested in exploring various mechanisms of making it complete. Most importantly, one would be interested in knowing how such improvements might impair or enhance the normal performance of the human body. Essentially, body modifications are done using tools, which are technologically developed.
In this context, a person reading literature on the theory of body modifications would want to interrogate the mental image developed that body modifications are indicative of the extents to which some people embrace technology. Stilwell (2009) is also inclined to this line of argument by further suggesting that modified body may “not only loosely identify a body, which incorporates technology, but also one that refers to a style” (p.26).
Consequently, it is possible for people reading literature on body modifications to interpret the arguments in support of body modifications as implying that those people who have not at any moment won any modifications are not fashion cautious concerning body modifications brought about by technological developments.
Indeed, if body modifications are indicative of the extents and levels of emotional attachments or how significant a close relative or a lover is to a person, reading on body modifications would suggest persons not having inscriptions of love in the form of, say, tattoos, are less attached to their loved ones.
When people read about body modifications, it is probable that they would change the manner in which they view themselves. This argument means that their individuality would change. After developing knowledge on how a tattoo fitting the entire back of an individual is made, it evokes fear and doubts of one’s ability to endure pain. In fact, physical endurance is one of the reasons why people modify their bodies.
Wohlrab, Stahl, and Kappeler (2007) support this argument by positing, “statements about testing one’s threshold for pain endurance, overcoming personal limits such as pain, the pain experience as such and showing off of own endorphins associated with painful penetration of the body, anesthetising, and developing a positive feeling are some of the reasons for undergoing body modifications procedures (p.91).
Although some curiosity of the wearer is satisfied, reading literature on body modifications from the perspective that it is one of the noble ways for people to quantify the extents to which they can endure torturing and humiliating moments in life raises the question on value addition of such an experience on people life (Stilwell, 2009).
Arguably, therefore, reading literature on body modifications creates the impressions that the human body is reducible to a piece of canvas for experimentations on one’s level of creativity to capture the essence of nature and record people’s experiences encountered in their life long struggles.
Gaining knowledge on the pain involved in the body modifications process gives a reader an opportunity to evaluate the appropriateness of declarations of some forms of body modifications as illegal by some legislative authorities.
Some of such modifications include surgeries, which are conducted illegally in the extent that they may threaten the life of individuals wearing them. Illegalisation implies that the proponents of body modifications who believe that, by modifying one’s body, one gains the ability to take charge and control of his or her body in the effort to create a difference are mistaken.
The claim holds because, if one does not have the freedom to conduct some forms of body manipulations, the body, or the life people belong to the state. In fact, the right of life is under the protection and enshrinement of many constitutional frameworks of different nations as part of universal human rights. No person is given the right to take or even expose his or her life to danger (Atkinson, 2004).
Does it is then sound substantively worth to consider some form of body modifications described in the literature on body modification as attempting to test the superiority of law on human right enshrined within constitutions of many nations? This issue is perhaps one of the ample questions that people reading literature on body modification would gabble with.
How people represent body modifications and representation of embodied experiences within sociology
People represent body modification and their embodied experiences differently in sociology. For instance, Victoria (1994) Wojcik believes that body modifications’ “movement is an outgrowth of punk in his punk and neo-tribal body art” (p.6).
The author of the book also identified the sociological representation of body modifications as being driven by transformative approaches to alerting the capacity of the body to portray both anger and shocks. Often in sociological contexts, there have emerged new forms of body modifications, which exhibits and signals to other people that one belongs to a particular class or a certain culture.
In such situations, embodied experiences are represented within sociology in the form of politicisation of “the body as a primary site of social control and regulation, a site upon which to imagine a new culture of the body that is more spiritual, healthful, empowered, and sexually liberated” (Victoria, 1994, p.6). Feminism, as a new culture, has positioned strong arguments on the misuse of the women bodies by maintaining that it has often been used in a manner beyond their (women) control such as forced prostitution.
Feminist movements have constantly advocated for the liberation of woman’s body, “which has been repressed by the western patriarchal religious transitions, as well as turned into an object to be dominated and controlled within convectional western medicine” (Victoria,1994, p.7). Liberation of the woman means that she is free to use her body the way she feels pleased. In this end, body modifications are some of the ways of highlighting the fracturing of control over one’s body.
This mode of representation of embodied experiences of people is not only a doctrine of feminist but also with the emergence of the gay culture. New discussions and practices have been assimilated in the society (Atkinson, 2004). These discussions surround the representation of embodied experience of sexuality and the need for a means of identifications of one’s sexuality inclinations. This case has resorted to the emergence of debates on body style and modifications perceived by some opposing sexual inclinations as deviant.
Among such body modifications and styles include, “use of leather, tattooing, and piecing within fetish practices and SN, as well as transgendered dress, adornments, and permanent and semi permanent modifications” (Victoria,1994, p.7). Consequently, people represent body modifications through alterations of their natural body forms with the aim of representing their embodied cultural experiences that identify their social interaction affiliations in a visual way through modifications.
Representation of embodied experiences among different people is an issue that has manifested itself in social contexts in valid forms. For instance, among feminists, the perception that women should have full authority to control the image of their bodies by means of self-inscription has attracted controversy among feminists and alternative communities for women.
The question of sociological manifestations of representation of embodied body modifications experiences is centrally located within the perspectives of feminism. As Atkinson (2004) notes, there is immense “sex debates over sadomasochism, and feminist struggles for the political significance of body and body roles” (p.128).
To satisfy socially anticipated roles for women, it also seems in the social fronts that some members of the society have lesser roles to play in determining whether to wear body modifications or not. For example, societal anticipations that women should be pleasing imply that one of the roles of the body is to appeal. In the effort to satisfy this demand, women often undergo body modifications such as plastic surgery and modifications induced by compulsive dieting.
Conclusion
People who do not have any interest on the subject of body modifications may perceive the subjects as presenting minimal situations for analysis in the effort to make conclusive judgments that determine the appropriate course of actions adopted by practitioners coupled with participants in the field of body modifications. However, as argued in the paper, discussions of body modifications incite valid views, which are insinuated socially and politically.
The paper argued that the history of body modifications is rich dating as early as the 16th century in places like Rome and among various pilgrims. Additionally, it was also held that the practice of body modification has evolved to act as a social representation of culture, sexuality inclinations, and a capacity to persevere pain and shock without negating the means of representing differences among people amidst other ways.
Reference List
Art of Listening. (2007). Inscriptions of love. London: Routledge.
Atkinson, M. (2004). Tattooing and civilising processes: Body modification as self-control. Canadian Review of Sociology & Anthropology, 4(1), 125–146.
Stilwell, N. (2009). The Sense and Sensation of Body Modifications Practice. London, University of London, Goldsmith College.
Victoria, P. (1994). In The Fresh: The Cultural Politics of Body Modification. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Wohlrab, S., Stahl, J., & Kappeler, P. (2007). Modifying the body: motivations for getting tattooed and pierced. Body Image, 4(2), 87–95.