We cannot deny that medicine has ceased to be merely something we turn to for the sake of our health, to relieve pain. Clearly it has become a means of achieving an identity. We've got everything from removing warts to reconstructing genitals to completely changing what our face looks like. It is all a means of getting to look how we want to look. Now, as many people have already said, we do this every day when we chose our clothing or do our hair or make the conscious decision to not do any of these things. It is all an identity.
Arthur Frank describes this in an interesting way when (on page 6) he talks about how we all belong in a field. Our hierarchal position in this field depends on the capital we have, whether its feet that fit into designer shoes or a nice face. This identifies the importance for one to have the capital necessary to fit into a certain field and almost justifies any means of medical enhancement to achieve this capital.
The key word in that sentence is almost.
Although it seems to make sense, logically every human "owns" their own body therefore they should be free to change it however they please, somehow it seems unfair that society dictates how one should look so much so that it drives people to actually change themselves surgically to fit in. When talking about Apotemnophiliacs, the issue is how one reflects their internal innate self physically. However, In Arthur Fank’s article, the issue becomes not the innate self, but the influences of our society and how they govern what we look like.
We as a society have the ability to use science and medicine to change our appearances however we may want (for the most part). So whether or not we should change our appearance seems to me like a pointless question; if we have the ability it will be done and no matter how much we may object to it now, in time it will become the norm. So my question becomes which has the authority to compel a person to seek medical means to change what they look like, the innate self or society? Should we respond with surgery to every little flux of our society? Or should we only use surgery as a means to achieve “one’s true self”? Beats me..
I would have liked to include Frank's segment on "fields" in my post, but was running out of time and words. I thought it was one of the more interesting points of the article. As you said, "cosmetic" surgery and anything similar has and will continue in popularity. This is a part of society that I want nothing to do with, yet I still once in a while find myself concerned with what to wear on a particular day. Those people are part of a different "field", and they are exchanging forms of capital to climb ranks within it. In some fields having something meaningful to say will get you nowhere, while having designer feet allows you to climb within the heirarchy. How can any external judgement on what is or isn't ethical possibly be beneficial or harmful to everyone when there is such a huge range of what people strive for. Maybe I am in the wrong field and just need to drop a few paychecks on some designer feet.
ReplyDeleteThis all feels like it grows from the Cartesian autonomous self--I get to do / have / make whatever I want with MY body. Galloping 'rights.' The new Atlantic has an article on legal suicide in Switzerland--again: MY life, my right to die. It's easy to bring in the abortion debate.
ReplyDeleteFrank uses a kind of materialist critique: value is assigned by 'fields,' but the field is created by big economic forces--the fashion industry, say. He ant us to look to the source. And work dialectically. I think I like that.