The Body, Individuality, and Violence
- ZoneOfNonBeing
- Posts: 93
- Joined: June 8th, 2016, 9:41 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Alan Watts
The Body, Individuality, and Violence
I begin with the premise that an undeniable fact of the human condition is that our bodies are vulnerable. At the beginning of life, the body is literally connected to the body of another human. The primary ties between people are corporeal. People are thrown into a universe they must share with others. As a result, bodies are remarkably exposed to the capricious actions of other people. This social relation of inter-dependency is inescapable, as all social and political life involves appearance. Additionally, the body depends upon others for recognition. We are beings-for-others. Judith Butler (2004) contends "the very bodies for which we struggle are not quite ever only our own. The body has its own invariably public dimension; constituted as a social phenomenon in the public sphere, my body is and is not mine" (emphasis added, p. 21). Vulnerability is a fundamental fact of existence that is bestowed upon humans without their consent or knowledge. This vulnerability is not a problem to solve, it is a reality to embrace.
Is the Western emphasis on individuality a denial of this fundamental vulnerability? Does the denial of vulnerability lead to violence? Are the armed forces an attempt to inoculate ourselves with myths of complete autonomy? If so, do the police and the military create more violence - making our bodies even more vulnerable?
sources:
Sartre, J.P "Being and Nothingness"
Butler, J. "Undoing Gender"
Saucier & Walker, "BlackWomenMatters" forthcoming
the Question of U?
-
- Posts: 56
- Joined: December 6th, 2015, 9:17 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Socrates
Re: The Body, Individuality, and Violence
By the way, independence does not mean "loneliness". One can be independent and have many friends and good relationships. Dependence simply means that you rely on others for certain needs or wants to the point where you are helpless without them.
- ZoneOfNonBeing
- Posts: 93
- Joined: June 8th, 2016, 9:41 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Alan Watts
Re: The Body, Individuality, and Violence
My usage of the term is mostly existential insofar as it refers to our physical openness to the elements and the actions of others. We are also vulnerable in a psychoanalytic sense: we require recognition from others to develop a sense of self.Wirius wrote: Depends on how you define "vulnerable". Are you implying a naked person cowering in the corner in fear or simply that we are physical, and thus can be destroyed like everything else in the universe? Thinking further, maybe you mean "dependent".
I agree that independence does not equate to loneliness in terms of society's privileging of dyadic relationships. But I am speaking at a slightly different register here. What I want to challenge is whether or not independence is a faulty and overblown concept. I will demonstrate my point with an example:Wirius wrote: By the way, independence does not mean "loneliness". One can be independent and have many friends and good relationships. Dependence simply means that you rely on others for certain needs or wants to the point where you are helpless without them.
I am sitting alone in my house. i am self-employed. I am not in a loving relationship. I do not visit my family. Am I independent? I would say no! The reason I am not independent is because I am using language to format my inner thoughts and spoken words. Language implies the existence of others to communicate with. We do not create the languages we speak; we are born into an ongoing conversation. We do not name ourselves; other people name us. We do not label the worlds around us; other people name them for us. To the extent that we recognize our desires, they do not belong exclusively to us, because we make sense of them through a language given us to by other people. Every word is a footprint left by people who preceded us. So if I am sitting alone in a room saying to myself "I am independent" - I have thoroughly missed the precondition for the thought itself. The usage of language forecloses upon independence. At most, there are some people who are less dependent than others.
Is there wisdom to the very system of language? If so, what can it teach us about the relationships certain bodies have to others?
the Question of U?
- LuckyR
- Moderator
- Posts: 7996
- Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am
Re: The Body, Individuality, and Violence
1- we are all depend on the community
2- it is ego gratifying to suppose that we are independent and self reliant
3- the one area where we are usually self reliant is in motivation, (outside motivation is common for children but uncommon in adulthood)
Therefore: #2 is appropriately used as a metaphor to get folks (through #3 ie self motivation) to maximize the level of their endeavors by using the (inaccurate) idea that we can accomplish this or that "on our own", even if we really can't.
-
- Posts: 56
- Joined: December 6th, 2015, 9:17 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Socrates
Re: The Body, Individuality, and Violence
Thank you for the welcome! I've really enjoyed that there are people here who want real discussions without trolling or insults! I would say a lot of language is contextual. For me, when I think of dependence, I think its reliance on others beyond the social norm. We all rely on the community. I rely on the grocery store for food, commerce for money to be valued. I rely on government and police. But to be part of this society, its a normal thing to be dependent, as people are also dependent on you for a job you do.ZoneOfNonBeing wrote:Welcome aboard Wirius! Wonderful post!
I am sitting alone in my house. i am self-employed. I am not in a loving relationship. I do not visit my family. Am I independent? I would say no! The reason I am not independent is because I am using language to format my inner thoughts and spoken words. Language implies the existence of others to communicate with. We do not create the languages we speak; we are born into an ongoing conversation. We do not name ourselves; other people name us. We do not label the worlds around us; other people name them for us. To the extent that we recognize our desires, they do not belong exclusively to us, because we make sense of them through a language given us to by other people. Every word is a footprint left by people who preceded us. So if I am sitting alone in a room saying to myself "I am independent" - I have thoroughly missed the precondition for the thought itself. The usage of language forecloses upon independence. At most, there are some people who are less dependent than others.
Is there wisdom to the very system of language? If so, what can it teach us about the relationships certain bodies have to others?
So then to me, dependence and independence are gradations from the norm, and do not hold any intrinsic value on their own. To put another way, think of a graph with a wildly looped line equation in its background. I can move the origin anywhere I want, then say, "This is greater than zero, and this is less than zero" in following the X and Y axis. The underlying equation doesn't change, but how we measure the equation does.
For example, lets say we decide independence and dependence on the police. A completely dependent person would be unable to do anything that the police do if the depedant person were in danger. So for example, if a mugger approached them, the person utterly breaks down emotionally and is unable to think to do anything for themselves in the situation. An independent person might have the skills to disarm the mugger, or make a secret cell phone call. They still rely on others, but if those others are unable to be there, the independent person can serve the function of those they are reliant on at a much higher level than the average person in that society.
With that, we can now examine language. I am an independent person when it comes to language. To me, language was invented by other people as a tool, and there is nothing inherent in it besides its use as a tool. If English disappeared overnight, I would have no qualms in starting my own language with a group. There are others who are highly dependent upon language. To not follow the rules, to not speak or write in the proper way is anathma. Both outliers have their strengths and weaknesses in comparison to the stable average dependency of that society.
To link this back to your initial premise of vulnerability, the independent and dependent person are each in danger of different things. The independent person is vulnerable to scorn and derision from society for not participating in the norms. Independence can be seen as crazy, antisocial, and perceived as snobbery and inflated ego. If a person is too independent, they may not even think to rely on society when it would be safer and easier, and put themselves in undue harms way. An overly dependent person is vulnerable too. They can be easily abused by those they depend on, or be called leaches, lazy, or incompetant. If they are too dependent, when the people they are dependent on are unavailable, the person is unable to do anything for themselves and they self-destruct.
Anyway, those are my thoughts. Thanks for letting me ramble a while. You made a great conversation starter and made me think about this in a way I hadn't before. Thanks!
- ZoneOfNonBeing
- Posts: 93
- Joined: June 8th, 2016, 9:41 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Alan Watts
Re: The Body, Individuality, and Violence
Can you explain the idea of gradations from the norm a bit further? What is the actual norm?Wirius wrote: So then to me, dependence and independence are gradations from the norm, and do not hold any intrinsic value on their own. To put another way, think of a graph with a wildly looped line equation in its background. I can move the origin anywhere I want, then say, "This is greater than zero, and this is less than zero" in following the X and Y axis. The underlying equation doesn't change, but how we measure the equation does.
Within language, you are independent. You have been assigned your own name, and you are able to navigate the world within the confines of language. But I would not describe language solely as a "tool". First of all, there is a difference between communication and language. Communication refers to sounds, looks, patterns of movement, etc that are used by all species to convey a message. Language refers to a system of letters and numbers arranged with rules of grammar used exclusively by humans to convey a message. Thus, language is not a "tool" used by humans; it is the ultimate expression of humanity.Wirius wrote: With that, we can now examine language. I am an independent person when it comes to language. To me, language was invented by other people as a tool, and there is nothing inherent in it besides its use as a tool. If English disappeared overnight, I would have no qualms in starting my own language with a group. There are others who are highly dependent upon language. To not follow the rules, to not speak or write in the proper way is anathma. Both outliers have their strengths and weaknesses in comparison to the stable average dependency of that society.
Humans use language because we have self-consciousness. Through self-consciousness, we recognize and create the difference between ourselves and others, and the external world. Language requires a gap or chasm between the speaker and the listener, or the subject and its object. Words are an attempt to fill the gaps and chasms between ourselves and others. Thus, language is always deployed in the service of unity - as an attempt to rectify the division imposed upon us via self-consciousness. To utilize language to suit an agenda based on "independence" distorts the function of language.
"I" always exists in relation to others. Remember that we are born connected to another being. The simple act of breathing requires give and take. Instead of saying "I think, therefore I am" we should be saying "I am, because we are". But we develop systems of thought that discourage the social dynamic of being and privilege the independent dynamic of being. The biggest culprits is consumer capitalism. We all depend upon the production of other people to survive - but capitalism privileges the individual over the group. This requires a certain ontological and epistemological violence insofar as we are forced to repress/ignore the social dynamic of production. Think of the way the UK exited the EU, or the way Americans hurl insults at those who are impoverished and in need of social welfare programs.
-- Updated July 30th, 2016, 10:59 am to add the following --
Great points! I think the problem is that we do not recognize our motivation as a metaphor. Our motivation is theorized in isolation as a testimony to being truly independent from others. We use it to galvanize myths of "lifting yourself up by your own bootstraps" - as if the very boots we are referring to were not produced by OTHER people!LuckyR wrote:No doubt that:
1- we are all depend on the community
2- it is ego gratifying to suppose that we are independent and self reliant
3- the one area where we are usually self reliant is in motivation, (outside motivation is common for children but uncommon in adulthood)
Therefore: #2 is appropriately used as a metaphor to get folks (through #3 ie self motivation) to maximize the level of their endeavors by using the (inaccurate) idea that we can accomplish this or that "on our own", even if we really can't.
the Question of U?
-
- Posts: 56
- Joined: December 6th, 2015, 9:17 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Socrates
Re: The Body, Individuality, and Violence
Sorry I've been away from this post and missed your reply. The norm would be whatever society would generally consider a norm within their context. For example, in Mexico, it is normal for children to live with their parents into their 30's, sometimes having kids and grandkids. This is not seen as dependent. Whereas in America where the norm is you are expected to move out by 20 (generally), children who live with their parents into their 30's are seen as dependent.ZoneOfNonBeing wrote:Can you explain the idea of gradations from the norm a bit further? What is the actual norm?Wirius wrote: So then to me, dependence and independence are gradations from the norm, and do not hold any intrinsic value on their own. To put another way, think of a graph with a wildly looped line equation in its background. I can move the origin anywhere I want, then say, "This is greater than zero, and this is less than zero" in following the X and Y axis. The underlying equation doesn't change, but how we measure the equation does.
Within language, you are independent. You have been assigned your own name, and you are able to navigate the world within the confines of language. But I would not describe language solely as a "tool". First of all, there is a difference between communication and language. Communication refers to sounds, looks, patterns of movement, etc that are used by all species to convey a message. Language refers to a system of letters and numbers arranged with rules of grammar used exclusively by humans to convey a message. Thus, language is not a "tool" used by humans; it is the ultimate expression of humanity.Wirius wrote: With that, we can now examine language. I am an independent person when it comes to language. To me, language was invented by other people as a tool, and there is nothing inherent in it besides its use as a tool. If English disappeared overnight, I would have no qualms in starting my own language with a group. There are others who are highly dependent upon language. To not follow the rules, to not speak or write in the proper way is anathma. Both outliers have their strengths and weaknesses in comparison to the stable average dependency of that society.
Humans use language because we have self-consciousness. Through self-consciousness, we recognize and create the difference between ourselves and others, and the external world. Language requires a gap or chasm between the speaker and the listener, or the subject and its object. Words are an attempt to fill the gaps and chasms between ourselves and others. Thus, language is always deployed in the service of unity - as an attempt to rectify the division imposed upon us via self-consciousness. To utilize language to suit an agenda based on "independence" distorts the function of language.
"I" always exists in relation to others. Remember that we are born connected to another being. The simple act of breathing requires give and take. Instead of saying "I think, therefore I am" we should be saying "I am, because we are". But we develop systems of thought that discourage the social dynamic of being and privilege the independent dynamic of being. The biggest culprits is consumer capitalism. We all depend upon the production of other people to survive - but capitalism privileges the individual over the group. This requires a certain ontological and epistemological violence insofar as we are forced to repress/ignore the social dynamic of production. Think of the way the UK exited the EU, or the way Americans hurl insults at those who are impoverished and in need of social welfare programs.
I would also argue that language is a tool. Communication is a function of our being, I agree with that, but how we communicate can be done through speech, or written communication. Language is a tool as language is not something we're born with innately. I was not born to speak English. I had to learn it, cultivate it, practice it, and get better with it.
Regardless of this, I think you're trying to get people away from being the "tough guy" who thinks everything they ever earned was do completely to their own hard work and gumption. No worries there, I agree completely that THAT guy is creating an illusion of self-empowerment. The reality is, we are interconnected with people from the day we are born. Your success is due to your own motivation as much as it is to your family, friends, and environment. Take your genetics and drop it off as a baby in a war torn country and I doubt that baby will grow up to be a "tough guy".
- LuckyR
- Moderator
- Posts: 7996
- Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am
Re: The Body, Individuality, and Violence
As it happens, the bootstrap analogy is quite accurate, ie no one can actually pull themselves up by their own bootstraps, you just force your feet further down into the boots!!ZoneOfNonBeing wrote:Great points! I think the problem is that we do not recognize our motivation as a metaphor. Our motivation is theorized in isolation as a testimony to being truly independent from others. We use it to galvanize myths of "lifting yourself up by your own bootstraps" - as if the very boots we are referring to were not produced by OTHER people!LuckyR wrote:No doubt that:
1- we are all depend on the community
2- it is ego gratifying to suppose that we are independent and self reliant
3- the one area where we are usually self reliant is in motivation, (outside motivation is common for children but uncommon in adulthood)
Therefore: #2 is appropriately used as a metaphor to get folks (through #3 ie self motivation) to maximize the level of their endeavors by using the (inaccurate) idea that we can accomplish this or that "on our own", even if we really can't.
2024 Philosophy Books of the Month
2023 Philosophy Books of the Month
Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023
Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023