From Mystical to Medical

Rosemarie Garland-Thomson’s book “From Wonder to Error—A Genealogy of Freak Discourse in Modernity” opens with the line “People who are visually different have always provoked the imaginations of their fellow human beings.” Who counts as being visually different? Is it only the body that is accounted for or do observable abnormal behaviors count towards one’s freakery? Garland-Thomson discusses monsters, dwarfs, albinos, bearded women, conjoined twins and many other abnormal forms that have been recorded as deviations from the normal body. Her focus was on freak shows, so I braced myself for the photograph that we were asked to look at in the book “Mütter Museum Historical Medical Photographs.”

At first there was nothing out of the ordinary—well, in the realm of freaks, anyway. You had your conjoined twins, amputated or otherwise missing limbs, enlarged breasts, extra limbs, a “tail” and some other ailments that did make me a little uneasy. At first I was confused by the lack of separation between the abnormal bodies created by nature and those which were created by accidents in our modern world [missing or malformed limbs versus gunshots leading to amputated (missing) or malformed (awkwardly healed) limbs]. This concern of mine was soundly put to rest when a classmate pointed out that, to the general public, they appear equally “freaky” as we do not get one’s life story by merely gazing at them (despite many failed attempts). As I approached the end of “Mütter Museum Historical Medical Photographs” a smaller section of the book intrigued me. The book had documented psychological disorders. Unlike the bearded lady or the conjoined twins, one could not look upon a picture of a mentally ill patient and know that they are any different even if they are observably different in person. Why would one then record the disorders in a medium that could not fully capture the disorder like photography can (at least to a certain extent) record the physical abnormalities of what the Barnum and Bailey Circus first called “freaks” and then “human curiosities”? (Garland-Thomson 13)

Despite the fact that they were not capitalized on as frequently through freak shows or the circus, those with psychological disorders were still considered to be other and a type of wonderment surrounded them. Schizophrenia and Epilepsy have a shared history in this fashion. Garland-Thomson discusses how freak discourse’s genealogy “can be characterized simply as a movement from a narrative of the marvelous to a narrative of the deviant.” While she discusses physical abnormalities, the path of mystical to medical is shared by mental disorders. In Europe in the middle ages, those with schizophrenia were thought to be possessed by demons and would go through exorcisms—sometimes even therapies which included drilling holes in one’s head in order to release the demons. Because of this link, the symptoms of schizophrenia were conflated with signs of practicing witchcraft or being the victim of another’s evildoing. Epilepsy on the other hand was frequently considered to be possession be a demon or a prophetic power. Many famous religious leaders are thought to have had epilepsy including Mohammad, Moses, and St. Paul. However, with the classification of mental disorders, science proved that these were in fact abnormalities that are observable and recordable through the study of brain function/neuroscience. The cultural difference became that schizophrenia and epilepsy became diseases to be cured through medicine and therapy and knowledge of the disease versus something to be amazed at and ask for the guidance of God.

Where are the freak shows then? How is this freakery being displayed? Why on television of course! With medical dramas like House depicting various types of medical illness for the public to be entertained by, we can still be the nameless and faceless majority looking on at a group of people who will never have a conversation with us and will never talk back. Popular real life documentary show such as Hoarders make one wonder if any of the freak spectacle has actually dissipated or if it has only changed mediums.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aAnah0l0rqk

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t3GiAcD9BfI

www.schizophrenia.com

www.epilepsy.com

Thomson, Rosmarie Garland. "Introduction: From Wonder to Error--A Genealogy of Freak Discourse in Modernity." Freakery: Cultural Spectacles of the Extraordinary Body. Ed. Rosemarie Garland Thomson. New York: NYU Press, 1996.

Lions and Tigers and Humans, Oh My!

The world has a long history of putting bodies on display. Of course, by ‘world’ I really just mean privileged bodies. And the bodies that were on display were those that fit into the category of ‘other.’ Regardless, a lot of people were used for the entertainment and amusement of others. A bunch of the time this was done all in the name of science. Bodies born with certain diseases, bodies that formed differently, bodies of the poor, bodies of women, and bodies of color are just some of those that were used.

As I was surfing around the internet for information and/or inspiration for this blog entry I came across something that legitimately shocked me: human zoos. What, you may ask, is a human zoo exactly? Well, it is precisely what you would think it is. “Human zoos were 19th and 20th century public exhibits of people - mostly non-Europeans. Africans, Asians, Indigenous people and many others were often caged and displayed in a makeshift ‘natural habitat’” (Channel 4). They were used as “pseudo scientific demonstrations of ‘racial difference’” (Channel 4).

In my searches, one name kept coming up in relation to human zoos. This name belonged to a member of the Mbuti pygmies, an indigenous people in the Congo region of Africa. The name is Ota Benga. Benga’s basic story is that a white man, Samuel Philips Verner, bought him from a slave trader. Verner brought Benga and several other pygmies back to America for the St’ Louis World’s Fair in 1904. Verner eventually brought Benga to New York, where Benga ended up living in the Bronx zoo. Here are is a picture of him:

In this picture, Ota Benga is seen holding a monkey. He is wearing what one would stereotypically think of when thinking of an indigenous person from Africa. He is in nature. There are trees and shrubbery all around him. When Benga lived in the zoo, his hammock was put into an orangutan’s cage “where he was encouraged to play with the orang utan and weave caps out of straw and to shoot his bow and arrow” (Channel 4). He was encouraged to perform activities that fit the stereotypes that Americans held. He was placed in a cage with animals and was displayed and treated as one. Even though it claimed to be scientific, this was all really done just for entertainment.

Now surely you would think: “These types of things can’t possibly still be going on. That was 1904… the world has come so far.” I hate to tell you this, but if you thought that you would be wrong. What shocked me more than finding out human zoos existed was finding out that human zoos recently existed.

In 2005 in Augsburgh, Germany an ‘African Village’ was put on display in the zoo. You can read more about it here, but I’ll give a brief rundown in case you don’t have time. Basically, African people were brought into the zoo, put into a recreated ‘African Village,’ and would make crafts for sale.

I really can’t understand the type of thinking that would go on to make someone think that this would be okay. I think a quote from the link sums it best: "There is an urge in Germany to see those who are not white as part of something exotic or romanticised." This urge, obviously, isn’t found just in Germany and it isn’t just directed towards non-white bodies. Most people, in general, love being able to look at different bodies in spaces where those bodies don’t have a chance to look or talk back. If this wasn’t true, human zoos and places like the Mutter Museum wouldn’t be as popular as they are.

(Image courtesy of wikipedia.com)

(Link courtesy of http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/4070816.stm)

(Cited quotes courtesy of http://www.channel4.com/programmes/the-human-zoo-sciences-dirty-secret/articles/human-zoo)

Constructing Normal

Rosemarie Garland-Thomson’s article “From Wonder to Error – A Genealogy of Freak Discourse in Modernity,” critiques the way bodies throughout history have been devalued in the way they are presented. She argues that viewing non-privileged bodies is a way of making the privileged feel better about themselves. This has happened in many ways, and today it can be seen at the Mütter Museum. While the creators of the museum claim that its purpose is for furthering science, it can also be critiqued for the way the bodies are being viewed.

By displaying the bodies in the museum as something different from the natural as a way to understand how to improve science, the bodies are being viewed as “others.” The public display is framed in science as being used for prevention of the diseases in the future. The problem with this view is that many of the medical problems were hereditary issues that the people had no control over. For this and other reasons, the purpose and use of the museum can become very controversial.

In class we watched the video “Love at the Mütter” and saw how these controversial issues could be seen. The video showcased a young, white, heterosexual couple becoming engaged within the background of the museum. We discussed how the video constructs the idea of the normative body and what the “normal” couple looks like. Something I found interesting when I looked at the video online was the comments. One viewer, Comelunch103, wrote several comments about how disgusting it was that someone would propose at such a museum. After some conversation and realization of the history of the couple, he apologized for his comments. However, he also made a statement that I think applies very well to our discussion: “Love is a disease. Incurable.” In the same way that we view medical diseases, we can view love. The Mütter Museum is a way of constructing a normative body, and in many ways, traditional ideas about love also construct “normal.”

In arguments about nature vs. nurture and why people are not heterosexual, many claim that they can’t help the way they feel about other people. For them, love is like a disease that cannot be controlled or cured. Just like the people whose bodies are displayed in the museum, they cannot help or control the way they are.

Our ideas about love and what is “normal” is heavily defined based on what is not normal rather than what is normal. In medicine, a “normal” body is determined based on the non-existence of disease. In the same way, we use ideas such as homosexuality to define “normal” love. We are socialized that love is between a man and a woman. I can recall the common picture of little boys kissing little girls because this is “normal”, meaning that we are born having feelings for the opposite sex. No one can define what love is or what it means to love. Everyone has a different ideas and normal love is not definable. However, when asked what an abnormal love is, it would be easy to list a myriad of ideas about rape and pedophiles.

Defining what is normal in any sense is very difficult. To do it, we have to define what is not normal. From love to medicine to psychological behaviors, the more we understand what it is not, the more we understand what it is. Freak shows, and museums like the Mütter display things seen as abnormal, and people view them in order to better understand themselves as normal.

Thomson, Rosmarie Garland. "Introduction: From Wonder to Error--A Genealogy of Freak Discourse in Modernity." Freakery: Cultural Spectacles of the Extraordinary Body. Ed. Rosemarie Garland Thomson. New York: NYU Press, 1996.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RZaslXPJbkw

The Spectacle of the Freak, Traditional and Modern

It's all about "guilty pleasures." People love to point out the differences between themselves and others; for most people, it is a wonderful feeling to realize that they are "better" than another person in some way. It is as it was with freak shows: "In a turbulent era of social and material change, the spectacle of the extraordinary body simulated curiosity, ignited speculation, provoked titillation, furnished novelty, filled coffers, confirmed commonality, and certified national identity" (Thomson, 4).

These are certainly turbulent times we live in. Societal rules and regulations change from day to day, with neither side of the spectrum (whether it be gender, socioeconomic, political, etc.) completely happy. We need a display of freakery for an acceptable medium to mock, show disdain for, and possibly even envy, the subject of the display. I am reminded of the Coney Island Circus Sideshow, the "last place in the USA where you can experience the thrill of a traditional ten-in-one circus sideshow" (www.coneyisland.com).

The show that we experienced was a mix of social and corporeal freakery. There were performers like Donnie Vomit, "the human blockhead," who drilled a 4-inch bit up hit nose and walked on glass; and his co-showmaster Heather Holliday, who was a contortionist and a sword swallower. Bethany even had the opportunity to pull a 3-foot twisted blade out of Heather's gut. At the same time, there were performers who would, today, be called disabled, but took full enjoyment in being "freaks." One performer suffered from Phocomelia, or "flipper-like limbs," which he explained to be a side-effect of his mother's taking Thalidomide while pregnant with him; he is a fabulous percussionist, and began his bit by performing the entire dance to Michael Jackson's "Thriller."The other corporeal freakish performer had fingers and toes that were fused into three digits on each extremity. He spoke with a Southern accent, juggled as well as any other person I'd ever seen, and referred to his corporeal differences as "super happy hands and feet." One might say that he was, in essence, mocking himself. I really think that he was happy with the life.

Donnie Vomit. Photos courtsey of http://www.coneyisland.com/per.donny.shtml

Heather Holliday. Photo courtesy of http://www.coneyisland.com/per.heather.shtml

Bethany and I left the sideshow, we were two people "Bound together by their purchased assurance that they are not freaks" and found that we even "longed in some sense to be extraordinary marvels instead of mundane, even banal democrats..." (Thomson, 10). We were both jealous of the beautiful Heather Holliday and the exceedingly charismatic Donnie Vomit. Though Bethany has a good job and a wide skill set, and I am nearly a college graduate going into a field that I love, we still find ourselves wanting to "go join the circus" from time to time. No matter how amazing I found the other's talents, though, I was never envious of the man with flipper-like limbs or his friend with claw-like hands and feet. What does that say?

There are boundaries on the allowances for envying "freaks." I can want to be like someone with talents, but not like someone whose talents are based off of their disabilities. It is alright to envy a "freak of culture" (Thomson, 10), rather than a corporeal freak. When looking at the situation from this angle and that of comparison, I began to understand the popular obsession with shows like MTV's Jersey Shore. Like the freak show, the pervasive popularity of such reality TV shows "fashioned...the American cultural self" (Thomson, 10).

Like freak show performers, the subjects of Jersey Shore have "conventionalized stage names," and show is entirely about their corporeal and societal differences. They sport names like Snooki and The Situation, tan themselves and work out until they are obviously unlike the people who they choose to subject as "others." The funny thing to me, though, is that the average person thinks that Jersey Shore is "a serious freak show. It's one hot mess after another. I love it!" (Scotto). In the same conversation, my cousin told me that she watches that show, and others on MTV, because it helps her get away from real life, but also helps her realize that "no matter how messed up things get, at least I'm not that bad" (Scotto).

Snooki, in her typical season 1 shot (being tended after getting hit in the face at a bar)

Photo courtesy of http://www.thehollywoodgossip.com/gallery/tending-to-snooki/

In the end, I believe it's true that all forms of freakery exist "for commercial ends" (Thomson, 7) and that they are used as a comparison for normalcy. We all need the occasional reiteration of the fact that we are, in fact, just like everyone else. "Freakifying" people who are different than we is a way of reaching this understanding. Really, though...we're all just freaks of a different color.

Works Cited:

Thomson, Rosmarie Garland. "Introduction: From Wonder to Error--A Genealogy of Freak Discourse in Modernity." Freakery: Cultural Spectacles of the Extraordinary Body. Ed. Rosemarie Garland Thomson. New York: NYU Press, 1996.

Freaks of yester year, Freaks of today.

"By its very presence, the exceptional body seems to compel explanation, inspire representation, and incite regulation. The unexpected body fires rich, if anxious, narratives and practices that probe the contours and boundaries of what w take to be human[...]" - Rosemarie Garland Thomson, Introduction: From Wonder to Error - A Geneology of Freak Discourses in Modernity.

In Introduction: From Wonder to Error - A Geneology of Freak Discourses in Modernity Rosemarie G. Thomson sets to discuss the history and beginnings of the representation of the "other", of the abnormal body. Not necessarily setting out to pinpoint a specific date, or a specific time of representation, but rather to trace a history that can help us see its own reminiscences in today's world, and particularly in today's visual culture. At the same time, what Thomson is also tracing is the evolution or historical changes of the discourse around abnormal bodies, because this discourse is what has shaped the representations of said bodies. Thomson recognizes a certain historical ambiguity within this discourse, in which bodies considered monstrous or freaks not only inspired fear or horror but also intrigue. We can say that these bodies carried a certain kind of mysticism, which moved people to fear them but at the same time respect them; whichever it was, in the end these bodies were still misunderstood, misrepresented and [mis]used. It is this fear of the unknown, this mystique surrounding freaks and their bodies what, in Thomson’s eyes, has driven a wide array of popular representation. I think a lot of it is also a social anxiety to classify, to differentiate and place each other within the norm, belonging to a group. Thomson points out that in many cases, freaks are represented as carrying a meaning beyond their own existence – their presence meaning premonitions of bad things to come, warnings for characters of stories, or obstacles to conquer in the search of truth (i.e Homer and the Cyclops). Much like photographs, representations of these bodies have aimed at portraying them as carriers of a self-evident truth, a truth beyond their own existence that perhaps reassures our own existence as “normal” bodies.

Indeed there is a fascination with making a spectacle out of the “horrible”; as we have seen through out class - i.e lynching photographs, the Abu Ghraib images, and even perhaps fetal photography - films and motion pictures are not an exception within this tendency of cultural productions. Towards the end of her article, Thomson argues that a recent, or rather modern, fascination with freak shows, vaudeville/burlesque shows, and subsequent manifestations in film/cult movies, is directly related to this history of spectacle. This is certainly true, but I would argue, however, that the presence of freaks, the burlesque and the bizarre in movies is as old as the film medium itself. I am merely arguing that popular representations in film of circuses, burlesque shows and the like are not just a modern manifestation of older obsessions, bur rather modern adaptations of already established forms of cultural productions of the fascinating freaks. In a way, everything is recycled, and this includes social anxieties. One example that comes to mind is the movie Freaks, a 1932 production by Tod Browning, who is also known for directing such motion pictures as Dracula (1931) or The Unknown (1927). Tom Browning made his career on portraying the bizarre and the unknown, and Freaks has in it many of the social anxieties and discourses of which Thomson speaks of.

I think Freaks is a very interesting in the way in portrays its characters and the voice it gives them. The movie revolves around a group of “freaks” – half man/half woman, dwarfs, deformed bodies, giants, etc – who live and work in a traveling circus. They are portrayed within this environment but with an emphasis on their daily lives behind the scenes, seldom do we see them performing and seldom do we see the audience. They are the majority in the film and in a way we are welcomed to their lives. Here we learn of their fears and their strengths and of how they defend themselves as a group when threatened by others, particularly by “normals”. One of the characters, a dwarf, falls in love with a manipulative beautiful woman of the circus who decides to play with his characters for money, while the dwarfs girlfriend – another dwarf – watches him fall to this trap. The freaks plan to show him the woman’s true intentions and make him come to his senses. Sadly, it seems that in the end coming to his senses means coming to terms with the fact that there is no place for him outside of the freak world, and that no normal person will ever seriously fall in love with him. In the end, the freaks also take revenge over this woman and transform her life forever by making her into a freak, to show her what their lives have always been like and will forever be. What I think is most unique about Browning’s film, and for a movie of that time period, is it’s positive portrayal of the freaks, their commonly human qualities and problems, an most importantly the agency that they have within their own lives even in such a restricted environment. This movie shows us that as old as this obsession of representing the unknown, or undesired, might be along with it has always been recognition of the absurdity of making a spectacle of others no matter how strange or different.

Mutant Resentment and Normative Conforming of ‘Freak Culture’ in “X-Men: The Last Stand”

Based on a Marvel comic book series, the movie “X-Men: The Last Stand” directed by Brett Ratner, presents it’s audience with an action packed story of the repercussions the human race faces as it dabbles in genetic engineering to “cure” the mutant X-Gene (the gene found in all mutants said to cause the extra-human like qualities). From the get-go, the movie documents a young Warren Worthington III (the mutant named Angel) cutting off sprouting wings from his shoulder blades (X-Men: The Last Stand). As the movie progresses we learn Warren’s father, Warren Worthington II, is embarrassed by his son’s “mutations,” and invests loads of money into a genetic project planned to stop, reverse and cure the mutant X-Gene (X-Men: The Last Stand). This cascades the movie into a fight between roughly three sides: the humans (the norm), a violent army of resisting mutants led by the powerful mutant Magneto, and a school of mutants who follow Professor Charles Xavier, dedicated to celebrating corporal difference. Among these conflicting sides, the movie’s tagline asks, “Whose Side Will You Be On?” However, underneath all of the cinematic explosions and war rhetoric, a social critique on what it means to be “normal” and what measures the government, humans and “mutants” will go to become/resist normality arises. In critically analyzing particular scenes of this movie along with arguments presented by Rosemarie Garland-Thomson's essay, “Introduction: From Wonder to Error— A Genealogy of Freak Discourse in Modernity,” a discourse touching upon current political and social issues will arise. At first we must ask: what does it mean to be a mutant (a freak) and against this, what does it mean to be human?

In her essay, Garland-Thomson marks a shift in the way society views “freaks” or “corporeal others” around the time of the Enlightenment. She notes that prior to Enlightenment logic, the “foreboding monster” or “wondrous freak” was explained by mystic theories, gods, God etc. (Garland-Thomson, 4) However, with the shift to logical thinking after the Enlightenment, the “freak” was transformed into a, “category of curiosity” (Garland-Thomson, 4). At once owned by wondrous thought, in modernity the freak is now, as she said, “owned by scientists” (Garland-Thomson, 4). Hence, with modernity and rational thinking Garland-Thomson suggests, “the freak (has moved) from the embodiment of wonder to the embodiment of error.” (Garland-Thomson, 13) In other words, what makes freak bodies different than normal bodies can now be explained by scientists as a result of genetic error— gene mutation in some cases. And since, as Garland-Thomson noted, that the discourse surrounding the “freak” embodies “error,” there is a chance for a reverse of error, or a “cure.” This absolutely pertains to the “X-Men: The Last Stand” narrative, because as the movie’s trailer suggests, “A major pharmaceutical company has developed a way to suppress the mutant X-Gene permanently; they’re calling it a cure” (X-Men Trailer). The trailer continues as the mutant Storm (on Professor Xavier’s team) says, “It’s not a cure! Nothing’s wrong with any of us for that matter” (X-Men Trailer). This reasserts that while the mutants following Magneto wish to end the human race in all, Professor Xavier’s team chooses to resist the discourse of mutant as corporeal otherness, which resists the “us and them” altogether. But how does Professor Xavier's team resist this discourse without violence?

To understand this perspective, let us draw upon ideas brought up in a movie review published in The Chicago Times, written by accredited Roger Ebert. In his review, he noticed some parallels with “X:Men: The Last Stand” and “current political and social issues” (Ebert). He continued saying that, “‘Curing’ mutants is obviously a form of genetic engineering and stirs thoughts of ‘cures’ for many other conditions humans are born with, which could be loosely defined as anything that prevents you from being just like George or Georgette Clooney” (Ebert). What Ebert is touching upon is the way in which we discriminate against a natural condition if it does not fit into a societal norm. Garland-Thomson writes, “Thus, what we assume to be a freak of nature was instead a freak of culture” (Garland-Thomson, 10). However even Ebert touches upon the mutant resisting feeling in saying, “The fact is, most people grow accustomed to the hands they've been dealt and rather resent the opportunity to become ‘normal.’ (Normal in this context is whatever makes you more like them and less like yourself.)”(Ebert). This resentment is what drives Magneto and his team (freaks of culture) into violent resistance. However, as noted before the movie brings up another resisting force which is not of resentment, but rather one of “exceptionalism” and conforming with normativity. Professor Xavier’s team chooses to view mutants in a realm of cohabitation corporeality, regardless of shape, color, or power. However this view also encourages mutants to be able to control their impulses, in order to better fit in the human world. What do you think about this idea of conforming to normatively? Whose side are you on?

Work Cited:

Ebert, Roger. "X-Men: The Last Stand.” Chicago Sun Times. 26 May. 2006. Web. 27 November. 2010.

http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060525/REVIEWS/60509005

Garland-Thomson, Rosemarie. “From Wonder to Error—A Genealogy of Freak Discourse in Modernity.” Freakery: Cultural Spectacles of the Extraordinary Body. Ed. Rosemarie Garland Thomson. New York: New York University Press, 1996. 1-19.

X-Men: The Last Stand. Dir. Brett Ratner. Perf. Patrick Stewart, Hugh Jackman and Halle Berry. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation, 2006. DVD.

Trailer found on Youtube.com: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kajEhbglG7k

non- love is in the air at the Mutter museum :(

Because this blog is so open, I just want to reflect on the discussion and my immediate reaction to the Mutter Museum as well as the youtube advertisement for the museum. Firstly, I read Rosemarie Garland Thomas’s piece before viewing the museum’s site and this tainted my ideas towards the museum. I think that a showcase of different rocks found around the world is far less interesting than a skeleton display of conjoined twins. However, Thompson’s piece, “From Wonder to Error—A Genealogy of freak discourse in Modernity,” made me consider how these displays were illustrating the process of devaluing human life because of physical “differences”. This really hurt me to see how these skeletol remains weren’t seen as people, but more of a fascinating visual simply because of its “freakish” nature. “By its very presence, the exceptional body seems to compel explanation, inspire representation, and incite regulation” (Thompson 1), this point that Thompson makes in her piece gives a great perspective on why the Mutter museum is so popular. People like to look at bodies that are different and love to be able to categorize them. The Mutter Museum is a great place to fulfill those needs, its filled with freaky bodies labeled by respected and well known doctors. Of course everyone knows that science is the end all be all to every question in the universe, so once a scientist labels a weird body, then the rest of the population has the right to consider the body diseased or disordered because it has scalpalatosis eretacoctus (I just made that up like most doctors just make names up).
I just really feel awful about the entire non consenting bodies that science has deemed important to put on display at a museum who’s mission is preventative education for common people in effort to avoid death and disease…and I’m guessing “deformity”. The reason why I have internal conflict about this whole mission intertwined with this display of people who look different is because their physical reality cannot be prevented. Meaning the disease or “problems” that these bodies on represent are genetically passed on. This museum is a way for able bodies to confirm their superiority.
The confirmation of superiority really resonated in the youtube advertisement of the couple who displayed their love through a proposal in the Mutter museum. This video focused on a couple who were by American standards superior and encouraged to marry and reproduce more able bodies. This video clip that was meant to be romantic and innocent I’m sure, happened to portray the historical ideals of bodies that matter taking precedence over bodies that don’t. There were displays in the background of the recorded proposal that obviously could not speak up for itself. Obviously the framing of the video wanted you to focus on the newly engaged couple, yet they zoomed in on a display of a body without the ability to speak up. The bodies on display in the background are just there for entertainment or just for a learning experience instead of being able to be apart of the experience. This video reminded me of a photo we viewed earlier in the semester with the black body hanging on a tree and a large group of white people having a social gathering. The picture portrayed the white people happy and engaged in conversation while the black hanging body was nameless and essentially less human. The same sentiment I had in this photo for that hanging body is how I felt when I seen both the site for the Mutter museum and the youtube video for the engagement at the Mutter museum.
I believe that Mutter museum is another form of devaluing certain human bodies while confirming the superiority of others.

Blog Post 11: Open Topic--Mütter Museum, Freakshows, Colonial Spectacle

By 9 pm on Sunday November 28, please post a 600-word response to the course material and discussion from this week. The topic for this response is open so you can write about a topic that you're most interested in, but your post must engage in some way with the readings, cultural productions, and/or class discussion from this week (Rosemarie Garland-Thomson's chapter "From Wonder to Error--A Genealogy of Freak Discourse in Modernity," the Mütter Museum, medical museums, historical or contemporary "freak shows," the spectacle of the devalued body, medicine's visual culture as popular entertainment, legacies of colonialism and world fairs, etc.).

Also, by 9 pm on Monday November 29, please make a minimum of 2 comments on your classmates' posts.

Our body Our Self Evident Truth

In Valerie Hartouni’s article "Fetal Exposures: Abortion Politics and Optics of Allusion" she explores and deals with the ways in which the discourse around abortion rights and legitimacy has changed in the USA since the 1980’s. I think in a deeper level, focusing on how the issue has been framed also pin point to this very discourse is in turn limiting and constraining the discussion around it, thus in a way limiting the outcome of such a debate. There are some underlying notions, which Hartouni thinks are central to this new discourse on abortion, the fetus and women’s body: There is 1) a focus on the “autonomous” or free floating fetus – in other words, a disconnect between the mother, her body, and the fetus/baby; 2) an understanding of abortion as something lamentable, regrettable, a last resort – something of a [violent and destructive] necessary evil. We can see, then, that abortion is framed in negative terms, which give it a shameful connotation, undesirable but needed. These are some of the ideas that she develops while analyzing a particular video which declared itself as portraying, or rather presenting, an abortion from the inside of the body. In this video, however, no information is given about who’s body, and we have no other source of affirmation that this in fact is an abortion taking place other than what is presented – voiceovers, subtitles. While conducting her research on this video, Hartouni notices a difference of perception of the issue at hand by the members of the audience according to age. Here, the younger generations approve or at least do not negate the possibility of abortion but still construe it as a last resort, a dreaded reality women sometimes have to face. In this sense, there are no positive associations with abortion and if one truly wants it there must be something intrinsically wrong with us; if we don’t regret it in the end we must surely hate babies and/or humanity.

On the other hand, Hartouni also speaks about the role of technologies in actually helping to frame these discourses, not necessarily creating them but that as instruments or vessels for them –specifically utilized to reinforce certain notions. I would argue that, in this sense, other viewing technologies outside of photography, such as videos, are nonetheless still associated or attributed with the “myth of photographic truth” – after all motion pictures and videos come from photography, and the notion that there is a self-evident truth beyond the image. The truth of the matter is the opposite, that images are not self-evident and rather open for interpretations – which is why artists need “artist statements”. In this way, viewing technologies are used to construct this self-evident truth, to formulate it. Let’s take for example the case of Abu Grahib, in which we were forced (quite unsuccessfully) to understand and read the images and actions portrayed in them as “out of the ordinary”, as only and merely negative elements of a generally and intrinsically benevolent entity [i.e the USA]. Indeed, this is what the documentary Standard Operating Procedure (Errol Morris, 2008) tries to get at in reframing the issue of violence and torture within the military as rather “standard operating procedure”, nothing new in the history of imperialism and war waging. We have also read articles in which this history of torture and the spectacle of torture is shown as being a central part of American culture [and imperialist enterprises]. In this sense, I think we can make a connection between the video images Hanourti talks about in regards to abortion discourse and the images of Abru Grhaib in relation a discourse of torture. Furthermore, there is also a connection between these images and issues that have to do with a classification of bodies, of desirable and undesirable bodies, which can be disposed of and used for different socio-political purposes. On the one hand, we have unclear images of bodily fluids and processes from inside an unknown body, of a process that threatens life at different levels that is violent and desperate. We are taught to read certain way in order to obtain a distinct emotional reaction. On the other hand, we have images of tortured unknown and undesired bodies, casualties of similarly violent process of conquer and threatening of lives in order to “save” others.

This is a link to a BBC news article that talks about scientists trying to find evidence of job skills in the brain through the use of technology – self evident truth about a persons abilities? What if we decided to look for evidence of gayness in the brain? How does this change the discourse around issues of gender and sexuality? Would views on gay marriage change

Brain scans and job skills

And this is an article about the role of the placenta, with a little pic like the ones we've seen before.

placenta

But They Told Me it's a Pipe!

There is a false sense of legitimacy that is socially ingrained in the technologically produced image. Painting and sculpture are not considered by popular culture to display complete accuracy. We believe that photographers (and others who document an aspect of our world through imaging technology) reveal the truth to the viewer and do not have as heavy a hand in manipulating the scene portrayed or the emotional response of the viewer. While not every aspect of every photograph taken has been due to a deliberate intention of the photographer, photography and other imaging technologies are far from void of manipulation.

Valerie Hartouni argues in “Fetal Exposures: Abortion Politics and Optics of Allusion” that “technologies themselves do not peer; they are instruments and relations that facilitate or obstruct, but above all construct ‘peering’…likewise ‘peering’ is not itself a benign, impartial, disinterested, or disembodied activity, but is both mediated and situated within interpretive frameworks, points of view, and sets of purposes” (Hartouri 211)

There is a strong connection between this concept and what Errol Morris argues in his film Standard Operating Procedure. The cameras which documented the acts of torture are not intelligent in that they do not understand what it is that they commit to visual history. The camera does not “peer” at the tortured Iraqi male however the camera is the instrument that facilitates our discussions surrounding the torture at Abu Ghraib as well as obstructs the various possible truths (reality?) at the prison. The way that the photographs are presented to the viewer by the documenter has a huge affect on how the viewer receives each image. As I discussed in a previous blogpost regarding Abu Ghraib, in Standard Operating Procedure, Errol Morris presents images to the viewer with a white frame against a black background evocative of a scrapbook (read: we are supposed to view these images as a routine part of our soldiers’ trip abroad). This scrapbook is the “interpretive framework” in which our peering takes place. We may peer at the photographs of the soldiers’ lifestyle and think how horrible those people were—but only because we, “mediated and situated” by the photographer (and in Standard Operating Procedure, the director) into a space where outrage and horror are the (perhaps the only) appropriate response.

Appropriate responses are elicited through interactions with imaging technology and the profound “truths” that they expose (and conceal). Hartouni articulates that at one point women who received abortions and did not experience regret or loss were viewed by popular culture as “callous, hard, selfish, capricious, or ‘unwomanly,’ but that this societal view shifted along with abortion discourse surrounding the more readily available technology of the ultrasound. In the late 1980s, women who didn’t have incredibly negative experiences with abortion were now considered to simply be “maternally illiterate or simply ignorant of fetal life.” The appropriate response of wanting to keep one’s baby was thought to be attainable through ultrasound imaging—a woman would see the fetus, recognize it as her legitimate preborn child and decide to not have the abortion. (Hartouni 206) The ultrasound machine does not have the ability to peer, but as with the pictures of Abu Ghraib, the viewer is mediated and situated towards a particular response—even guided step by step. I cannot read an ultrasound image—a doctor would have to tell me where the fetus’s head is—where the fetus’s foot is. I am mediated and situated by society to look at the image and claim it as a child—possibly my child. At every step, imaging technology is used to produce images that are read to the viewer through discursive frameworks surrounding the topic which we believe to be presented to us within the image…but this is not a pipe.

Hartouni, Valerie. “Fetal Exposures: Abortion Politics and Optics of Allusion.” The Visible Woman: Imaging Technologies, Gender, and Science. Eds Paula A. Treichler, Lisa Cartwright, and Constance Penley. New York: NYU Press, 1998. 171-97.

Standard Operating Procedure. Dir. Errol Morris, 2008

Also, this reminded me off the discussion we were having in class regarding how women are supposed to just want to be mothers. Enjoy!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tJRzBpFjJS8

The Subject(iveness) of a Photo

My interpretation of Hartouni’s argument highlighted in the prompt is a two-part piece:

Part 1: I am going to make a generic, fairly base, and perhaps bold (maybe all three?) statement: An image’s purpose is to be an object that is looked at. If there’s an image and no one sees it, that image arguably does not matter. The image only gets a meaning when someone looks at it and assigns it a meaning. Assuming this to be true (which I am) any image—no matter what kind—is open to interpretation.

Part 2: Every image is framed or edited, even without trying to be. To explain this, I’m going to go with the example of photography because it is the easiest to apply. The photographer, for instance, decides what gets into the shot. S/he chooses what is allowed in the frame of focus and snaps the picture—containing some things and leaving out others. It is physically impossible to capture everything. There’s no technology that is capable of it.

Taking these last two paragraphs into account, I’d like to turn my attention towards a specific type of technology and the image it produces. The particular kind I’d like to explore is a type of medical or biological imaging technology. This allows the viewer to see the inside of a body. The reason I want to check out this type is because it’s scientific. It is commonly viewed as being objective and matter of fact. However, as mentioned in my interpretation of Hartouni’s argument, there’s no such thing.

To test out this idea, I’d like to take a look at a specific image:

Without knowing what this image is or what context it was taken in, a person is left to assign it a meaning. Without knowing anything, the viewer is left to see only the shapes, colors, and textures. You get an overall warm feeling from it because of all the red and yellows. You see some type of blue tube-ish figure. You notice its texture. There’s bubble-like surface. The blue appears to be coming out or going into the yellow thing. You see the texture of the yellow thing. It has a ton of tiny bumps on its surface. It comes off as something fairly abstract.

I asked a few friends what they thought it was and the answers they came up with were not even close to the real thing. I got: “A frog with water spewing out of its eye,” “A mosquito sucking out of something,” and “I have no idea.” Each person brought his or her own meaning. When I revealed what the image actually was I got a much different response. It ranged from “Ohhh” to “Are you doing something on abortion?”

When I told them what it was, I didn’t say anything about abortion. I simply said that it was a sperm entering an egg. I didn’t mention “baby,” “fetus,” or “life.” As soon my one friend knew what the photo was, the nature of her interpretation changed. It went from being something abstract to being something that was loaded with meaning. This particular friend has a fairly strong belief in God. As soon as she heard the words sperm and egg together, and saw that I (she knows I’m a fairly liberal person) was writing something she automatically assigned it a new significance.

This goes to show that even “scientific” and “objective” images aren’t so scientific or objective. I think that ultimately, Hartouni is asserting that particular type of argument. No matter how big the attempt to capture a matter-of-fact image, it is impossible. Either the way in which the image is framed (zoomed in, zoomed out, off center, etc) or the way in which a viewer approaches it makes multiple meanings possible and probable.

(Image is Lennart Nilsson's and was used courtesy of http://pics.photographer.ru/nonstop/pics/pictures/573/573605.jpg)

Stop Avoiding the REAL body that matters

My interpretation of Hartouni’s argument is that technology or a visual by itself does not and cannot evoke any emotion. But it is the socially constructed connotations that surround these visual and technological mediums that frame your interpretation and ultimately your emotions when it comes to certain issues. Hartouni focuses on the issues surrounding abortion and the visual culture that are used to argue pro-life and pro-choice positions. Hartouni mentions that the same fetal images that were used in the past by pro- life advocates are now used by pro choice supporters to give off a very different sentiment. “The circulations of fetal images by anti-abortion forces, the routine use of ultrasonography in monitoring pregnancy and labor, the development of widely publicized, culturally valorized, medical techniques in the area of fetal therapy and repair have together worked to shift the terms in which abortion is now framed, understood, experienced, and spoken by those who champion ‘choice’(198).” I thought this was so interesting, yet disturbing that the people who “champion” for the rights of women who want to undergo this abortion procedure use images that show a fetus- not the woman that is the one making the decision. I really thought when that point was brought up in class today, that these pro-choice advocates were copping out…and watering down their position to adhere and gain the support of some people who may not relate to women and having the right to chose what the do with their body. Unfortunately, I thought immediately of how the majority of the people that make these laws and who have historically been the main lawmakers in the past are males. Which are the same people that biologically cannot produce children, and therefore would be more prone to relating to a “free-floating fetus” which is an image that they can associate with, because they take part in that creation process. A picture of a woman attempting to make this decision, on her own, on a bumper sticker would be far less appealing to the opposite sex.
Fetal photography to visually produce the common person and the lawmakers of “yesterday” and “today” is extremely clever. This is especially true when you have a person like General C. Everett Koop who was quoted saying that he knew how a woman would feel when she had a chance to see a visual of what was potentially growing inside of her. Initially, I was a little irritated with a male expressed the appropriate reactions of a woman who was carrying a child after she saw her unborn child and how she SHOULD bond with it. However, after thinking critically I realized that the old man was right! People respond better when they are visually stimulated. I immediately related the phrase “out of sight out of mind,” and realized that a book with pictures touches more people than a dictionary. What I mean by this is that a doctor throwing medical jargon at a 14 year old girl who is pregnant and doesn’t have the capacity to see past what she is doing next weekend making this decision on her own versus if she were to put a visual of what is going on inside of her and associate that little fetus head with a three month old that she babysits for every Friday night. I agree that this can potentially be a way to provoke maternal feelings in some women that wouldn’t necessarily feel that way initially. However, it is not shy of offensive when considering the demand of these feelings for all women who if they don’t feel this way are considered ”callous, hard, or selfish (206).” This negative association with women who chose not to have children at the time on conception is baffling. I absolutely think that pro-choice advocates should embrace the body that carries this fetus and ultimately has the decision and is forced to deal with this reality, the female body.

photos curtesy of:
http://i1-news.softpedia-static.com/images/news2/Pregnant-Teens-See-Their-Future-Life-as-La-Vie-En-Rose-2.jpg

http://i.telegraph.co.uk/telegraph/multimedia/archive/00627/news-graphics-2006-_627476a.jpg

'Choice' and 'Freedom' in Today's Airport

Among very recent and countless press coverage sources, a Chicago Tribune article posted yesterday by Jon Hilkevitch, Julie Johnsson and Becky Schlikerman, attempts to put together a response to the newest technologies in airport security. The article discusses how loads of people (especially those about to travel for the Holidays) are “Up in arms” about the new, “full-body scans that can see under clothing” (Hilkevitch, Jon). In reading the comments posted under the article, it’s plain to see that many American’s feel the full-body scan violates personal privacy. As the article continues, what becomes more problematic about this new airport security measure is that air travelers have the ‘choice’ to opt out of this all-revealing body scan, only to get an “enhanced pat-down” by a TSA officer of the same sex. This “enhanced pat-down” enforces the TSA officers to, “Run their hands over the genitals of same-gender passengers to look for hidden objects.” (Hilkevitch, Jon). According to a Colbert Report segment aired on November 15^th, where Colbert interviews Jeffrey Goldberg on the matter, if you “choose” to not go through the scanner, or not to get an “enhanced pat-down,” you must leave the airport, or face a civil suit and a $10,000 fine ("TSA Full-Body Scanners"). In taking all of this in, the discourse surrounding the U.S.’s current airline security measures includes troublesome rhetoric embedded in sexual embarrassment at the cost of advanced video surveillance, encompassed all by the liberal construction of ‘choice’ and ‘freedom.’ Before we flesh out the ‘troublesome choice’ of the extremely sexualized “enhanced pat-down,” we must first analyze the discourse surrounding the federal government’s “peering” ability and power in the “full-body scan.” In "Fetal Exposures: Abortion Politics and Optics of Allusion," Valerie Hartouni writes, "technologies themselves do not peer; they are instruments and relations that facilitate or obstruct, but above all, contruct 'peering'...likewise 'peering' is not itself a benign, impartial, disinterested, or disembodied activity, but is both mediated and situated within interpretive frameworks, points of view, and sets of purposes" (Hartouni 211). In saying this, the “peer” of the airport security scan not only technologically produces an image of a naked body, but rather socially produces the destruction of private property on a bodily level. Hartouni argues that, “What we see is inseparably linked to and utterly dependent upon how we see” (Hartouni, 211). We must challenge how see these images embedded in our own cultural discourse. In class we discussed the “liberal construction of ‘choice’ and ‘freedom,’” in creating a Subject within the all-encompassing liberal (law) realm. In other words, it is a U.S. ideal that by “law” we are entitled to the right to own our bodies (object) as property of the self (Subject). In saying this, the power of the “full-body scan” peer disrupts the interpreted framework of a set ideal. On the same note, even though the ‘liberal’ framework allegedly sets up a ‘choice’ to resist this destructive peer with the “enhanced pat-down,” the discourse surrounding the latter is embedded in a similar framework of violent ‘constructed peering’ the scan conducts.

The ‘choice’ to get an “enhanced pat-down” by a TSA officer of the same sex, rather than to walk through a scanner that will produce an image of your body naked, can be argued to be even more humiliating and destructive to private bodily rights than the scan. While an image of your naked body on a screen for national security measures is not produced, the federal government constructs a different kind of ‘peer’ that strips the Subject of his or her agency, integrity, etc. through physical bodily humiliation. In all, the discourse surrounding this “enhanced pat-down” assumes heteronormative ideals at the expense of personal freedoms. First, if you choose to not go though the scanner, you either have to take on the identity as male or female. Second, if you choose to not go though the scanner, you must also take on the identity of being straight. The Colbert Report touches upon the troublesome discourse surrounding a TSA member of the “same sex” performing these pat downs, asking: What if you’re gay… a hermaphrodite… a creepy man claiming to be gay so he can be felt up by a woman, a child, etc.? ("TSA Full-Body Scanners”) Jeffrey Goldberg argues that these procedures are not only “unnecessary,” but also extremely problematic, because basically they are set up not for “national security,” but “humiliation” ("TSA Full-Body Scanners”). In a sense, which ever ‘choice’ you make, you are doing so at the expense of your ‘freedom’ as a citizen and Subject with agency. Hartouni asks us to explore beyond “what” we are seeing, to “how” we are seeing these “peers” (Hartouni, 211). In the case of our current airport situation, we are seeing a terrorized population being forced to make a ‘choice’ between being subjected to loosing their ‘freedom’ either by an image or by a physical assault. In relation to Hartouni’s argument about reproductive rights, people who, “champion ‘choice’… lose site of the profoundly radical and consequential fact in a post-1980s struggle for reproductive freedom,” that pregnancies, “occur in women’s bodies” (Hartouni, 213). A physical (yet sexualized) body that exists in a liberal (legal) system, which protects it’s biological reproductive “freedoms” as one through privacy. And yet, this is proven not to work, because when a liberal system (for security reasons, etc.) is set up in a discourse that doesn’t acknowledge the body as private, we ask: who owns what bodies? Who is entitled to own their own body as private property? How can a ‘choice’ be made by someone who is not entitled to their own private property? The new airport security measures proves there is actually no ‘choice’ for an allegedly ‘free’ populace. How strange?

WORK CITED:

Hartouni, Valerie. “Fetal Exposures: Abortion Politics and Optics of Allusion.” The Visible Woman: Imaging Technologies, Gender, and Science. Eds Paula A. Treichler, Lisa Cartwright, and Constance Penley. New York: NYU Press, 1998. 171-97.

Hilkevitch, Jon, Julie Johnsson, and Becky Schlikerman. "Up in Arms over Airport Security." Chicago Tribune. 15 Nov. 2010. Web. 16 Nov. 2010.

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2010-11-15/news/ct-met-airport-security-1116-20101115_1_full-body-scans-tsa-thanksgiving-travelers

"TSA Full-Body Scanners." The Colbert Report. Comedy Central. New York City, New York, 15 Nov. 2010. 15 Nov. 2010. Web. 16 Nov. 2010.

http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/365686/november-15-2010/tsa-full-body-scanners---jeffrey-goldberg

Victimization, Voyeurism and Vulnerabilities

Peering is a thing of voyeurism. A voyeur is “a prying observer, who is usually seeking the sordid or the scandalous” (merriam-webster.com). I feel, though, that we are all voyeurs in some way. Scandal is a subjective thing, after all, and one can find baseness in the most mundane if they’re looking for it. This is why there are so many forms of surveillance. From TV shows like Big Brother to sonography to Facebook, we are always watching and being watched.

Hartouni's discussion of "fetal exposures" speaks to a specific kind of voyeurism, where the scandal is abortion. In an age of the idolatry of the child, it is no surprise that people are compelled to keep a watchful eye on their prized idol from the moment it is understood as such. In her exploration of "some of the ways in which the public presence of the free-floating fetal form has fundamentally reshaped both the perceptions and practices that constitute abortion..." (Hartouni, 198), the reader comes to realize that the current discourse on fetal life and its termination (purposeful or accidental) is one that treats the fetus as an autonomous being, essentially removing the mother-figure from the situation. In fact, "...for the embryo/fetus to emerge as autonomous...all traces of the female body (as well as the embryo's presence as a parasite within that body) must disappear" (Stabile, 172). This erasure of the feminine presence is done through the fetal ultrasound.

My discussion will refer to sonography, or ultrasound technology, and the misnomer of its description as "non-invasive". While ultrasound technology is often thought of as a non-invasive technique, the preparation and procedure of ultrasound imaging breaks a level of intimacy that, though it is perhaps physically non-invasive, can be mentally trying. I will not refer to the ultrasound as it is used to for monitoring the fetal environment. The ultrasound is typically used for diagnosis of abdominal problems (though it is best known for its use in viewing fetal life); it is a way of seeing what is wrong from the outside. Yes, there is no breach of the physical barrier between sonographer and patient. All tissues are still intact and no harm has been done to the body. I must ask, though, how this procedure is not considered invasive.

From my experience, this is the typical stage of an ultrasound: the patient lays on the table, abdomen covered in lubricant, possibly contorted into a position that is unnatural to them. The patient will have a probe pressed into their flesh, hard enough to “see” through the fatty tissues to get the optimal “picture.” This picture is nothing like a photograph, though. As you can (or can’t) see in this video, the image is a black-and-white, fuzzy mess. As Hartouni puts it, "So much for the given, the unquestionable, and the self-evident" (Hartouni, 208).Without the title and voice-over, the viewer would not know that they are looking at the inside of a woman. Interestingly, this video gives an example of what I consider to be an extremely invasive ultrasound procedure: the intravaginal ultrasound.

(image courtesy of http://www.dotmed.com/listing/603503)

This "non-invasive" probe (if that isn't an oxymoron) is inserted into the vagina "like a tampon," as my sonographer told me. The situation, though, is nothing like inserting a tampon. It is done in the presence of another person, laying in the dark, with your bladder full of liquid. It is not even the clinical situation of visiting a gynecologist; a sonographer cannot touch the probing victim, so she must victimize herself, put on display for the technician. The other problem is this: the probe must be long enough to be inserted into the vagina with the head of the probe penetrating the uterine opening. They are very, very long, and the heads are very wide. In short, the situation is one of discomfort, embarrassment, and definitely one of invasion:

(image courtesy of http://www.cancer.umn.edu/cancerinfo/NCI/CDR258027.html)

At sixteen years old, I went into the ultrasound clinic to find the source of my terrible abdominal pain. I left with a feeling that was almost one of being violated. I'd had no idea that an ultrasound could take place inside of me. I also left with no more information that I had gone in with. An ultrasound technician cannot read a sonogram; that is the job of some unseen peering eye.

In a way, the ultrasound gives autonomy to the parts of a body that are reliant on the body as a whole, while simultaneously taking the autonomy of that whole. It acts as a form of surveillance, revealing the vulnerability of the thing that it monitors. In this way, the ultrasound is similar to the digital photography taken in Abu Ghraib.

As they were presented to the public, "The photographs [of the prisoner pyramid] from Abu Ghraib have been presented to us in suitably blurred form so that we cannot see the care with which the torturers made sure that each man had his penis touching the buttocks of the man below" (Mirzoeff, 25). The image featured in Mirzoeff's article is significantly blurred and in black-and-white, looking almost like a sonogram. Out of context, one might not even know that the image shows a group of men being forced into sexually vulnerable positions. Their faces are not shown, removing the autonomy of the individual and showing only the collective embarrassment of the group.

The tortures of Abu Ghraib were performed with surgeon-like precision, and the photography revealed only the vulnerability of the victim. "This desire to obscure the guards' practice, rather than any belated concern for Islamic sensibility, motivated the digital erasure of this contact" (Mirzoeff, 25). The care is never for the autonomy of the victim. Here, it is for the perpetrators; with medical imaging, it is for the fetus or the organ. As with most forms of surveillance, when it comes to medical imaging, as with the photos of Abu Ghraib, I find myself feeling that the most important question is the one that is rarely asked. What is being left out?

Works Cited:

Hansbilboard. "Vaginal Ultrasound." Youtube. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IRENaeKSAvw&feature=related

Hartouni, Valerie. "Fetal Exposures: Abortion Politics and Optics of Allusion." The Visible Woman: Imaging Technologies, Gender, and Science. Eds Paula A. Treichler, Lisa Cartwright, and Constance Penley. New York: NYU Press, 1998. 171-97.

Mirzoeff, Nicholas. Invisible Empire: Visual Culture, Embodied Spectacle, and Abu Ghraib

Stabile, Carol. “Shooting the Mother: Fetal Photography and the Politics of Disappearance.” The Visible Woman: Imaging Technologies, Gender, and Science. Eds Paula A. Treichler, Lisa Cartwright, and Constance Penley. New York: NYU Press, 1998. 171-97.

The Framework of Medical Imaging

We live in a technology driven world. Our generation has been born into this technology and has accepted it in the ways we were socialized. Many of these technologies have human-like capabilities, and so we view them with human-like qualities. One of these qualities is the ability to “peer”. Medical technologies such as cameras, x-rays, etc., have the ability to photograph or view the inside of our bodies. However, they do not have the connection of eyes or a brain to be able to actually “see” what they are looking at. Instead, these machines capture images for users to see, so all peering is facilitated by humans, not machines.

Valerie Hartouni talks about this in her article “Fetal Exposures: Abortion Politics and Optics of Allusion.” One of these popular imaging technologies is the sonogram. Carol Stabile also addressed the topic of viewing the fetus in her article “Shooting the Mother: Fetal Photography and the Politics of Disappearance.” The sonogram is a medical technology that uses sound waves to create an image of the inside of someone, in this case: the fetus inside the mother. This medical instrument has become so common that it is an expected procedure done many times on all expectant mothers who receive a doctor’s care. The language we use surrounding this procedure gives it much more credit than it deserves. Common phrases such as “we’re going to see our baby” or “we got to look at the baby” show a lack of understanding that the reproduction of an image based on sound waves is not an actual picture of the baby as if the camera was in the womb. Stabile writes that these technologies often forget the role of the mother and isolate the fetus. The pictures printed from a sonogram are a shot of just the uterus. No other part of the mother is visible, making the image seem even more like a personal photograph of the baby. It is also often forgotten that the device was created with a purpose perhaps other than for the parents to take a peek at the baby. Hartouni mentioned in her article that the device was created and is often used with the intent that seeing the actual baby will make a mother less likely to have an abortion.

This technology behind ways of peering is also evident in other areas of the medical field. The detection of cancer is largely based on images, and Jackie Stacey points to the effects of this visual culture in her book Teratologies: A Cultural Study of Cancer. Medical imaging technologies are all created to look for evidence of something the naked eye cannot see. Just like a sonogram is viewed as evidence of a baby, medical imaging is also used to detect as a mass as evidence of cancer. What is the purpose of having the knowledge? Some may say both cancer detection and images of fetuses are ways of sustaining life. I would argue that medical imaging devices are a source of power. It gives the doctor the power to decide what the next step in treatment will be. It also often gives the patient the power to make a decision about their body.

“Peering” into the body is done in many ways and can serve many purposes. Whether it is to discover a possible life or a possible destroyer of life, medical imaging provides a visual representation of something we are not supposed to see. While who are against abortions argue that it is disturbing nature to take away a life, the use of medical imaging devices are disturbing nature by stopping many deadly diseases and problems that would otherwise go undetected and lead to death. Our tech-generation has been raised to view any technology as a good thing, but the goodness, badness, usefulness, and power behind these ways of seeing all depend on the framework in which they are being both used and thought about.

Hartouni, Valerie. “Fetal Exposures: Abortion Politics and Optics of Allusion.” The Visible Woman: Imaging Technologies, Gender, and Science. Eds Paula A. Treichler, Lisa Cartwright, and Constance Penley. New York: NYU Press, 1998. 171-97.

Stabile, Carol. “Shooting the Mother: Fetal Photography and the Politics of Disappearance.” The Visible Woman: Imaging Technologies, Gender, and Science. Eds Paula A. Treichler, Lisa Cartwright, and Constance Penley. New York: NYU Press, 1998. 171-97.

Stacey, Jackie. “Visions.” Teratologies: A Cultural Study of Cancer. New York: Routledge, 1997. 137-76.