Bodies are important. For one thing, I can say both that “I have a body” and that “I am a body” – which you can’t say about much else in this world. To have a body means that it is on public display, an object of manipulation, management, and a potential battleground between what I want as an individual versus what I am required to do as a member of society. To be a body is to experience the world in ways that are difficult, if not impossible, to communicate to anyone else. How do we really know that the pain or pleasure that we suffer is the same as anyone else’s?

QUESTION

Bodies are important. For one thing, I can say both that “I have a body” and that “I am a body” – which you can’t say about much else in this world. To have a body means that it is on public display, an object of manipulation, management, and a potential battleground between what I want as an individual versus what I am required to do as a member of society. To be a body is to experience the world in ways that are difficult, if not impossible, to communicate to anyone else. How do we really know that the pain or pleasure that we suffer is the same as anyone else’s?

Although anthropology looks at both aspects of embodiment – both having and being a body – we’ll focus only on the first right now. We’ll deal with the “internal” experience of being a body later on in the course.

Displaying my body means that certain social facts become immediately visible to others. Am I male or female? Old or young? Black or white? Abled or disabled? Attractive or ugly? Fat or thin? Each of these involves a judgment about someone’s cultural standing in a given society based largely on physical appearance. Note that boundaries are important, too: whether someone is black or white is not always “obvious” at first glance, so people may actually have difficulty deciding on how to react to what they see. Despite this blurring of boundaries, we do know one thing: your life chances – by which I mean important material considerations such as whether you have a good job, a partner, find yourself in prison, or even whether you die young can depend on cultural criteria surrounding the body.

Just to take a couple of examples, it’s well known that if you are a woman you are likely to make less money than a man who does the same job. It’s also true that if you are fat you are less likely to get a job or to get promoted than if you are thin. Recent studies strongly suggest that of you are black you are less likely to get the same treatment in hospital emergencies as a white person who shows up with the same symptoms. Even whether you are called for a foul in the NBA is strongly influenced by your race: white players are much less likely to be called for fouls than black players, according to a study just out this past spring.

I’m going to give you three examples about ways that bodies are on display: (1) “incompetent” bodies; (2) bodies under control; and (3) bodies that are decorated. I’m then going to talk a little bit about your readings for this week on body rituals (Miner) and territories of the self (Goffman).

Incompetent bodies

By “incompetent” bodies I mean bodies that are in some way vulnerable to being seen as less than fully functioning, less than adult, maybe even less than human. Keep in mind that “incompetence” is a cultural judgment and not simply a given fact about a body. Every body is incompetent in some environment, just as every body is competent in some situations.

In many cultures, including our own, children’s bodies are seen as not completely competent. Kids get in the way, they’re likely to do something dumb that can get them hurt, they aren’t as strong or as well practiced as adult bodies. We “know” that children have to be controlled and protected in certain ways.

But at least some historians believe that this view of children is a relatively recent development. Philippe Aries has argued that before the industrial revolution, children were perceived as being essentially small adults: they ate, drank, worked, and slept right next to adults without any apparent feeling that they were in special need of attention or protection. What happened to change this view? In the 19^th century, schooling became increasingly seen as important, and as a result children were removed from the workplace and placed in school, organized according to age grades, by which I mean a series of culturally determined levels of maturity, from childhood through adulthood. When children no longer occupied the same space as grownups (except in custodial situations like schools), their bodies were gradually redefined as “incompetent” in adult terms.

Another kind of “incompetent” body is the body seated in front of the computer. I teach many faculty to use computers in their teaching, and if they grew up before computers were widespread, many of them don’t know how to use a keyboard or a mouse, and “can’t” see on the screen key elements that are readily obvious to anyone who knows about computers. I know from first-hand experience that people really feel badly about their obvious lack of “competence,” and often simply avoid computers altogether in their teaching so that they don’t feel so vulnerable.

A third kind of “incompetent” body is the body that is seen as “obese”: we’re told that there is an “obesity epidemic” in modern times, and that we must do all we can to prevent our bodies from becoming obese. Studies show that obese people are perceived as less knowledgeable, less mature, and less physically competent than “normal” people. Many scholars have argued that the evidence for an obesity epidemic is flawed for a variety of reasons. It’s interesting to note that many warnings against obesity focus particularly on women, especially minority women: it’s as if people ranked lower in our status hierarchy become natural targets for all kinds of social disapproval. Some scholars use the term moral panic to refer to the recent concern for an “epidemic of obesity”: a moral panic is a socially orchestrated, exaggerated attack on some kind of person or event or situation that has been identified as dangerous to society (other examples of such moral panics include graffiti, teen gangs, secondary smoking, immigration, and global warming). Notice that we don’t have to decide whether the threat is “real” in order to analyze it from an anthropological perspective! We’ll return to the concept of moral panic later in this course. For the time being, just remember that moral panics are often focused on deficiencies of the body, and attempts to control the body in new ways.

Question: have you been in situations in which you felt that your body was performing incompetently? Did you try to hide your perceived lack of incompetence in some way, or did you avoid the situation altogether.

Bodies under control

This brings me to my second topic, bodies under control. A simple example of control is the expectation that when you are in a theater, a schoolroom, or a church service you will sit quietly and politely and listen to the folks in charge. Your body should be controlled at all times, and you should maintain a posture that suggests you are listening attentively to the person up front. This notion of controlled bodies is a relatively modern one, according to Norbert Elias. Elias wrote a famous book about the civilizing process, in which he pointed out that gradually over the past few hundred years Western societies have increased their expectations about the degree of control that should be exerted over bodies – we then internalize these expectations, and often write them into our rules about what counts as “polite” behavior.

For instance, a hundred or so years ago there was no expectation that people in a theater would be politely controlled and attentive: audiences routinely shouted at performers, recited the lines along with them, laughed talked among themselves, threw things at the stage, came and left as they wished. To take another example, our modern rules about (not) spitting, about using a handkerchief or Kleenex when you blow your nose, about using a napkin to wipe your face or hands while you’re eating, and more recently, about (not) smoking, are all expectations of bodily control that are part of Elias’ “civilizing process.” Even control over your emotions, such as accidentally bumping into someone, interacting with your children, or politely waiting your turn in a long line, are examples of a civilizing process.

Please notice that when he refers to “civilizing” Elias is not necessarily thinking of something that is necessarily positive or desirable: Elias (who was a Jew writing in Germany around the time Hitler took power) would also have recognized the Nazi extermination of Jews, Gypsies, people with disabilities, and Communists as part of a “civilizing process” from their point of view – it’s clear that the Nazis saw themselves as do-gooders who were busily engaged in cleansing the world to make it a better place.

Note that “civilized” bodies also create the possibility of transgressive bodies, which are bodies that are out of control: transgressive bodies include bodies of the wrong shape or size or bodies that lack certain functions (like blindness), bodies that do the wrong thing in public (such as farting or yelling), bodies that lose control like bursting into tears, bodies that present themselves “wrongly” by smoking in a no-smoking area or being drunken.

Question: what kinds of polite behavior do you engage in that is part of “the civilizing process”? What kinds of body control are important to you? What parts of body control do you reject, consciously or not? (Especially think of traditional gender-based body control here.)

Bodies that are decorated

Enid Schildkrout has written an essay on body art that demonstrates really clearly, I think, the ways that bodies become social objects as a way to identify individuals (and their affiliation with particular groups). Schildkrout points out that body art is common to many cultures, including of course our own, and that what is done to the body as art is also symbolically being done to the person who inhabits/owns that body: the body is a metaphor that stands for the cultural person whose body it is. (And I might add that in turn, animal bodies are often metaphors for human bodies, so what is done to animals is also, in effect, being done to humans. An example of this is the assumption that dogs are male by default and that cats are female by default. Another example is the use of animals in ritual sacrifices.)

Schildkrout talks about the painting of bodies, including makeup, as a way to define gender, occupation, or ritual status (e.g., a warrior, a spirit, or a person involved in a ceremony of some sort). Cutting hair – or conversely, letting it grow – often signals a change in status, perhaps from being single to being married, or from being a sexual person to becoming someone who is celibate, like a monk.

Scarification is often used in Africa to show tribal membership, or to show that a person has been through the rituals that make them adults. Branding is a form of scarification that often suggests that the person (or animal) that has been branded is the property of someone else.

More familiar to us is the use of tattooing and piercing as methods of self-decoration. Usually there are rules about who can or should be using these forms of body art. Until recently in the US, tattoos were displayed mainly by sailors, working class men, or people who had been in prison. Piercings were traditionally gender-marked: a woman could have piercings, but a man who did so might be considered a homosexual – no “real man” could have a piercing. Nowadays both tattooing and piercing have lost a lot of their cultural stigma, though kids who get tattoos are often careful to put them in places where they won’t be observed in “polite society” or the workplace, and piercings in unusual places (the genitals or nipples, for instance), are sometimes adopted as private signs of rebellion or as part of one’s arsenal of intimate sexual gratification.

As Schildkrout points out, body art has become globalized, by which I mean that the techniques and forms of body art have become part of youth cultures around the world, with body art being borrowed from East to West, and back again. Body art has also become commodified, by which I mean that it has become something that you buy and sell, often as part of the body: an example would be the celebrities who use their bodies as part of their personal “brand” – two examples of celebrities whose bodies have been commodified and globalized (though in very different ways) are Michael Jordan and Paris Hilton.

Question: do you use body art? If so, why? If not, why not?

Body rituals (Miner) and territories of the self (Goffman)

Horace Miner wrote his famous article Body Ritual Among the Nacirema partly to amuse, but also for a more serious purpose: he wanted us to think about the fact that even our most ordinary everyday activities – simple things like brushing your teeth or bathing – are filled with cultural meaning.

Body routines, in Miner’s view, are like rituals: they are performed regularly according to a widely known cultural script, they refer to fundamental values such as cleanliness, health, or beauty, they make us feel good in much the same way that religious rituals do. From Miner’s point of view, it would be hard to identify a body routine that wasn’t ritualistic, intended to achieve a cultural goal.

Erving Goffman’s article (you are reading an excerpt, not the entire article) has some of the same purposes as Miner’s. Goffman believed that humans “perform” their cultural selves in everyday life before an audience of others who are also performing their identities. Goffman saw these performances as highly ritualized, just as Miner did, and here he is focusing on a particular aspect of ritual, which is the way in which rituals create specific cultural spaces – territories – which we use to make our performances effective. These territories allow us to present ourselves publicly as we think best, while at the same time concealing aspects of ourselves that we consider private, to be hidden from others.

What is the relationship between Miner and Goffman, between body rituals and territories of the self? To put it succinctly, body rituals create, maintain, and refresh territories of the self. Or to think of it the other way around, every territory of the self requires its own body rituals to sustain it. Without body rituals, there can be no territories of the self; without territories of the self, body rituals have no purpose.

Here’s a simple example: dancing. Almost all human cultures dance, and typically the dancing in some sense involves ritualistic body movements – there are “right” ways to dance, and dancing expresses basic cultural values and feelings. If you’re dancing in a club, you’re typically doing so with one or more partners as well as, in some sense, the entire “community” of dancers in that club. Body movements are synchronized, and people (especially dance partners) adjust their territories to one another as a way partly of sharing territories – see, we’re performing together as if we were a single self in two bodies.

What territories of the self are involved? First of all, use space, since it’s assumed that people will give you enough room to dance, and even move around the dance area in such a way that others can also move around it. Second, the sheath, since your costume displays something about yourself – you’re very sexy, you’re very cool, maybe you’re looking to hook up. Third, the amount of personal space is adjusted downwards: dancing is more intimate than sitting or walking, so the smaller volume of personal space is appropriate to the occasion. Bumping into people can be part of the fun. Fourth, there is usually a possessional territory – a jacket or a drink – that identifies where you will be sitting when you aren’t dancing. Of course, dancing itself creates a possessional territory, since you ordinarily not compelled to dance with someone you don’t want to. Fifth, conversational preserve: your body language and your eye contact help to determine whom you will recognize on the dance floor, how you interact with your partner, whom you’re deciding to dance with next. Sixth, informational preserve: your exuberant dancing may conceal the fact that you’ve just been dumped, that you don’t feel very well because you’ve drunk too much, that you’re really bored with your partner and would like to find someone else. Even the turn can come into play in one of those dance forms where everyone on the floor lines up in two rows facing each other, and people take turns showing off by dancing between the lines. I note that the stall is only relevant to particular kinds of dancing, like lap dancing!

Thinking about body rituals and territories of the self is fun, because you can do it in almost any situation. You can also start from either side of the equation: start with a specific body ritual to see what territories of the self are created; or start with a particular territory of the self, and ask what body rituals have to be carried out to make that territory part of a successful performance of the self.

ANSWER

The Significance of Bodies: Exploring Display, Control, Decoration, and Rituals

Bodies play a crucial role in our lives, serving as both a personal possession and a means of experiencing the world. This essay delves into the multifaceted nature of bodies, focusing on their display, control, decoration, and the rituals associated with them. By examining these aspects, we can gain insights into how bodies are socially constructed and the impact they have on individuals within society.

Displaying Bodies: Sociocultural Judgments

The act of displaying our bodies makes certain social facts immediately visible to others. Gender, age, race, ability, attractiveness, and body size are among the characteristics subject to cultural judgments. These judgments can significantly influence an individual’s life chances, impacting their access to opportunities, resources, and fair treatment. Disparities such as the gender pay gap, discrimination based on body size, and racial biases in healthcare demonstrate how cultural criteria surrounding the body shape social hierarchies and power dynamics.

Incompetent Bodies: Vulnerability and Social Definitions

“Incompetent” bodies refer to those perceived as less than fully functioning or less capable within specific contexts. Historically, children were considered small adults until the industrial revolution prompted the emergence of age-graded schooling, leading to the redefinition of children’s bodies as “incompetent” in adult terms (North & Fiske, 2012). Similarly, individuals unfamiliar with computers may feel incompetent when faced with technological challenges. Additionally, the stigmatization of obesity illustrates how bodies deviating from societal beauty standards can be labeled as incompetent, affecting their perceived knowledge, maturity, and physical abilities.

Bodies Under Control: Politeness and the Civilizing Process

Society imposes expectations of body control to maintain order and reinforce social norms. The civilizing process, as theorized by Norbert Elias, highlights the gradual increase in societal demands for bodily control. Today, we are expected to exhibit controlled behavior in various settings, such as theaters, classrooms, or religious services. Politeness norms regarding spitting, nose-blowing, and table manners are part of this process. While body control can facilitate harmonious interactions, it also creates transgressive bodies, challenging societal norms through actions like public displays of emotions or unconventional behaviors.

Bodies That Are Decorated: Artistic Expressions and Cultural Identity

Body art, including tattooing, piercing, scarification, and hair modifications, is a universal cultural practice with symbolic meaning (Schildkrout, 2014). Body art serves as a metaphor for the cultural person inhabiting the body, representing gender, occupation, ritual status, or group affiliation. The globalization and commodification of body art have enabled its adoption and commercialization worldwide. Nevertheless, cultural and gender-based rules often regulate the use of body art, creating distinctions and perceptions within society.

Body Rituals and Territories of the Self

Body rituals, as observed by Horace Miner, infuse cultural meanings into everyday activities, highlighting their ritualistic nature. Erving Goffman’s concept of territories of the self emphasizes how rituals establish spaces for individuals to perform their cultural identities and maintain public and private boundaries (Dan Krier, 2020). Dancing serves as an illustrative example where various territories of the self, such as physical space, appearance, and possessions, are implicated. Understanding the interconnectedness of body rituals and territories helps us comprehend the performative nature of social interactions.

Conclusion

Bodies possess significant cultural and social dimensions. They are subject to judgments, control, artistic expressions, and rituals that shape individual experiences and societal dynamics. Recognizing the complexities of bodies enhances our understanding of the ways in which society constructs and values individuals based on physical appearances. By critically examining these aspects, we can strive for a more inclusive and equitable society that values and respects the diversity of embodied experiences.

References

Dan Krier. (2020, October 26). Sociological Theory:  Skeleton Key 2 to Erving Goffman’s Interaction Ritual (1967), © Dan Krier [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nyl9WwsYL84 

North, M., & Fiske, S. T. (2012). An inconvenienced youth? Ageism and its potential intergenerational roots. Psychological Bulletin, 138(5), 982–997. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0027843 

Schildkrout, E. (2014). Body Art as Visual Language. Anthro Notes, 22(2), 1. https://doi.org/10.5479/10088/22380