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