The Body in Society

An Introduction

Alexandra Howson

• Publisher: Polity
• Year: 2013
• ISBN:
  9780745664002
• Edition: 2
• Topic: Social Sciences
• Subtopic: Discrimination & Race Relations
• Index: Social Sciences

In everyday life we are not, for the most part, actively conscious of our bodies or the bodies of others – we simply take them for granted. This new edition of a lively introduction to the sociology of the body examines what certain aspects of our bodies, such as the size, shape, smell and demeanour, reveal about the social organization of everyday life and how the body is crucial to the way we engage with the world and the people around us.

The human body is endowed with varied forms of social significance which sociology has addressed by asking questions such as: To what degree do individuals have control over their own bodies? What interest does the state have in regulating the human body? How significant is the body to the development and performance of the self in everyday life? What images of the body influence people's expectations of themselves and others? Written in a clear and comprehensible way, The Body in Society introduces students to the key conceptual frameworks that help us to understand the social significance of the human body. This second edition has been thoroughly updated to take into account recent theories and debates and also includes enhanced pedagogical features. Using familiar examples from everyday life, such as diet and exercise regimes, personal hygiene, dress, displays of emotion, and control over bodily functions, coupled with examples from popular culture, the text has strong contemporary relevance and will strike a chord with all who read it.

This book will be essential reading for students taking courses on the body in sociology, anthropology, gender studies and cultural studies.

1

The Body in Everyday Life

Introduction: An embodied approach to self

Understanding the development and presentation of the social self is a central concern for the discipline of sociology, that is, ‘those aspects of the personal life of each individual which have been created through social participation, which shape the way in which we come to experience the world and which contribute to a consciousness of being a member of society’ (Lee and Newby 1989: 309). The purpose of this chapter is to outline the significance of the human body for developing a sense of self and presenting self in social interaction. The work of Erving Goffman is central here. First, the chapter examines the development of self and the importance of physical appearance and sensory experience in this development. Second, it looks at the presentation of self in everyday encounters and problems that arise in such encounters in circumstances where the body breaches social norms or expectations. Third, the chapter introduces a phenomenological perspective on embodiment.

Embodiment

There are two very broad approaches to the body in current sociology. The first views the body as a special kind of object that has increasingly become the target of control and discipline, and we will address this approach in chapters 3 and 5. The second approach views the body as a crucial dimension of self and, indeed, rejects the concept of the body as the focus of analysis in favour of embodiment. Embodiment can be used in various ways but generally places emphasis on the interaction between social and biological processes. It is used to highlight the significance of the body as a lived aspect of human experience and as central rather than, as people in the West are encouraged to feel, peripheral to experience. The Cartesian legacy, outlined in the Introduction (see p. 3), reinforces the idea, in both everyday life and sociological analysis of the everyday, that there is a division between the body as felt and the body as an object. In contrast, the concept of embodiment alerts us to the relation between the objective, exterior and institutionalized body and the sensual, subjective, animated body (Turner 1992). In the German language, this division between the subjective and objective body is referred to in a more subtle way. Körper refers to the body as an object, while Leib refers to the felt, experienced body. Hence, the concept of embodiment signals the importance of approaching the body as a synthesis of Körper and Leib.

An embodied approach largely assumes that bodily integrity is central to self-identity and views self and society as constituted through the practical work done with and through the body in interaction with others and with the physical environment. This notion of practical work is captured by two concepts: that of agency and that of action. First, agency is a concept derived from the symbolic interactionist framework associated with the Chicago School in the early part of the twentieth century, and addresses the body’s role in responding to and creating social worlds by giving meaning to the intended and unintended actions of others. Second, action is developed within a phenomenological framework to highlight the emergence of self as embodied, constituted through the practical actions of the body upon the world in which it is situated. Though visual information and perception are important to both concepts for an understanding of how the self develops and enters into relations with others, the phenomenological view rejects any ontological separation between mind and body, and therefore also places emphasis on other senses in the constitution and presentation of self.

An embodied approach largely assumes that bodily integrity is central to self-identity and views self and society as constituted through the practical work done with and through the body in interaction with others and with the physical environment.

The body and presentation of self

Agency and embodiment

A key text concerning the self, central to many undergraduate sociology courses, is Erving Goffman’s The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life (1959). This book is a detailed ethnography of life on a Scottish island in the 1950s and focuses on the various ways in which the self is presented and maintained in social encounters. Goffman’s analysis of self-presentation draws on the work of two earlier colleagues at the University of Chicago, Charles Horton Cooley and George Herbert Mead. In 1902 Cooley published an influential book called Human Nature and the Social Order in which he proposed a theory for the development of self as a creative agent (Waters 1994). For Cooley, self-development emerges through interaction with others who reflect back to us an image of ourselves. Indeed, we learn who we are from others and our imagination of the way we appear to them. Correspondingly, the face and the eyes are an important focus for Cooley’s analysis of the development of the self-idea. In contrast to cultures that conceal the face (especially the female face with the veil or burqa), in Western culture the face is generally visible and physically exposed. The visual appearance of the face is important to the presentation of self because, in Western culture, the face offers vital expressive information to others about who and what we are. People look into our faces, and our eyes in particular, to discover our identities, or who we ‘really’ are. Furthermore, four of the five sensory organs are located within the head and face, providing an interface between our bodies and the environment. However, as we saw in the Introduction, though all senses contribute to our perceptions and experiences of the physical environment (and as phenomenologists insist), in Western culture sight is the privileged sense.

The looking-glass self

Visual information and the appearance of the body is important for Cooley, and what he refers to as the self-idea develops in three key phases. The self-idea emerges, first, in relation to how we imagine we appear to others, second, in relation to how we imagine others judge our appearance, and, third, through the ‘self-feeling’ produced by our imagination of these judgements. To emphasize his point, Cooley uses the mirror as a metaphor for the development of the self as a looking-glass self. Mirrors provide us with visual access to the external appearance of our bodies, but the appearance of our bodies is mediated through what we imagine others think of us. Mike Hepworth summarizes the process involved thus:

Plate 1 The ‘looking-glass self’: by about 18 months of age, humans can recognize themselves in the mirror

© Plus/iStockphoto

Looking into a mirror is an interactive process through which connections are made between the personal subjective self of the viewer and the external world of other people. Because we have no direct access to the external reality of the body, even with the existence of aids such as mirrors and the wide range of technical apparatus available to us now (cameras, video cameras and the like), the act of human perception is always mediated symbolically by meaning. When we look into a mirror we are therefore engaged in an act of the imagination whereby the self is constructed symbolically as a portrait or picture. (Hepworth 2000: 46)

Somatic perception

The second body of work influencing Goffman’s analysis of self-presentation belongs to George Herbert Mead, who in turn owes much of his approach to both Cooley and George Simmel. Mead, like Simmel, took the view that human beings are motivated by ideas and that society is constituted via the exchange of gestures and symbols. He placed considerable emphasis on the role of images and symbols in generating self through interaction with others. Though Mead acknowledged that ‘we are trained by our society to keep our bodies out of our minds’ (Mead 1949), he also argued that mind and body are ontologically interrelated, difficult to separate (Mead 1934), and constitutive of a somatic perception of the world through which we become objects to ourselves (Mead 1938). The self within a symbolic interactionist framework is not a discrete entity developed via rational thought alone, but is the product of an ongoing, never-ending social process characterized by constant interaction not only between self and others but also between different aspects of self.

For Mead, there is a two-part self that relates, first, to what he refers to as ‘instinctual’ and ‘impulsive’ habits (‘I’) or, to put this another way, to bodily expressions, feelings and conduct. The second aspect of self relates to the set of organized beliefs learned from the mirroring process described above, provided by social interaction between ‘me’ and members of the groups to which ‘I’ belong. This latter aspect of self is an objective self that expresses the gaze of others (society enters the self via ‘me’), and which ‘I’ am capable of standing back from and reflecting upon. The relation between ‘I’ and ‘me’ is experienced as a form of dialogue, as a continual conversation (as in ‘I said to myself’) not only of words and thoughts, but also through the exchange of gestures and symbols. The self is developed gradually from infancy in interaction with others through play and games, through which we learn to develop an awareness of, anticipate and take on the roles of others. If you are around children of two-and-a-half or three years old you can probably observe what Mead is referring to here. Young children play games in which they physically mimic the actions of others before they have a complete grasp of language. They literally act out roles in their games. Moreover, for Mead, the self is not fixed in time but is constantly open to change and modification because its development occurs in interactions, which may change and become more complex across the life course, and because of the ever-present conversation between ‘I’ and ‘me’. Therefore, in the work of both Cooley and Mead, the external appearance of the face and body are crucial to the development of self. Over time, through processes of interaction with others, we develop awareness of how they see us, which in turn influences how we see ourselves (Hepworth 2000).

Felt identity and the body

Goffman uses these ideas to develop his analysis of the presentation of self through social encounters. Goffman’s work takes as read Simmel’s (1908) observation that people are socially bound together through the various encounters, sensual experiences and glances that are exchanged in everyday life. Goffman is interested primarily in what makes it possible to enter into and participate in social encounters and in the presentation and maintenance of self in such encounters (Williams 1987). In The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life, Goffman develops a framework in which he casts social life as similar to theatre. His dramaturgical model emphasizes how individuals, social groups and institutions manage information in order to present a particular impression to those with whom they interact. His approach allows him to focus on the roles and performances given by selves, the settings in which they occur and the audiences such performances address. Performances are made possible by adopting roles, which operate as organized frameworks that allow people to make sense of encounters, experiences and the information with which they are presented in everyday life. People, or actors in Goffman’s terms, seek to maximize or minimize visibility of information, depending on the impressions they seek to present, and the ‘self-feeling’ or ‘self-image’ people develop is related to both how effectively we present ourselves and whether encounters confirm or nullify our self-conception (Freund and McGuire 1999).

Self and identity are, thus, in Goffman’s perspective, actively negotiated in an ongoing way via interactional work with others, and grounded in a tacit notion of self-feeling or ‘felt identity’ (Goffman 1968). The body is central to felt identity, a project to be worked on and with (Shilling 2003). Thus, for instance, when injuries occur to the body, self-identity can be profoundly threatened. As Collinson and Hockey (2007) argue, sporting injuries require direct re negotiation of identity by enacting similar physical rituals and engaging in body work (for the runners in Collinson and Hockey’s study, this meant walking instead of running) that not only help to rehabilitate the body, but also go some way towards repairing disrupted identity.

Goffman himself did not necessarily begin his observations and analysis of the presentation of self in everyday life by observing and focusing on the body. Nonetheless, his approach has been developed to examine the presentation of self through both body work and face work (Shilling 1993; Williams and Bendelow 1998).

Methodological Note

Goffman’s method depended on detailed observation and scrutiny of the rules and rituals that make encounters possible and sustain social order. In particular, he emphasized the significance of visual and expressive information in social encounters. Such information – facial expression, gestures, physical cues or mannerisms – is provided by and through the body. Other scholars have enlarged this perspective by arguing that successful passage through public life, or competence as a social actor, is dependent on following the rules of the interaction order and developing routine control over the body (Giddens 1991).

Body work

People make information available to others in both focused and unfocused interaction via the human body. For Goffman, the setting in which focused interaction takes place is deemed a front region. Here the body provides expressive equipment such as appearance, dress and demeanour in ways that help define the situation as being of a particular sort. For instance, in a teaching situation, the setting of focused interaction might be the classroom, arranged with the aid of physical props such as chairs strategically placed, technical equipment such as an overhead projector, and so on. Yet establishing and maintaining a definition of the situation as one focused on teaching also requires the performers to play the roles of students and teacher or lecturer. In order for these roles to be convincing, they need to be performed with corporeal integrity. That is, the presented self will be convincing only if accompanied by appropriate body conduct. For example, the role of attentive student might be performed by sitting up straight, making eye contact, laptop fired up, whereas the role of the bored student might be performed by avoiding eye contact and looking around the room or out of the window.

Although Goffman did not explicitly present his work as an analysis of the body in interaction, nonetheless some of his work draws explicit attention to shared patterns and ways of using the body in Western culture. In Gender Advertisements (1979), Goffman shows how bodily gestures that are part of images designed to sell products also convey meanings about relations between men and women. In this book, accompanied by many photographs that provide an inventory of gestures, he shows how particular gestures and positions imply relations of power between men and women. For instance, Goffman suggests that images in which women are seated and men are standing convey a sense of male authority. Add a man’s hand to a woman’s shoulder, and this image becomes one that is suggestive of sexual ownership. Goffman suggests that social interaction and interpretation of bodily gestures, expressions and positions depend on shared understandings of what they mean or on what he refers to as a shared vocabulary of body idiom.

Body idiom

Body idiom denotes the physical gestures, positions and conduct that are recognizable as conventional aspects of everyday life in Western culture, especially public life, such as handshakes, smiles, ways of walking, speech patterns, forms of dress, and so on (Goffman 1963). Anthropologists refer to body idiom as ‘techniques of the body’ (Mauss [1934] 1973) and have observed that body idiom varies cross-culturally. Because body idiom in self-presentation is shared, Goffman argues, it enables people to classify information about people’s conduct (or, as psychologists might put it, body idiom is part of non-verbal communication or body language). In turn, knowledge and understanding of what bodily gestures mean influence how people present themselves in social encounters. However, Goffman uses the term body idiom not only to highlight bodily conduct as an important part of self-presentation, but also to draw attention to the way the body enters into and is used as a means of categorizing people and grading them according to their social position.

Pause and Reflect: What kinds of movements or practices would you identify as ‘body techniques’? List as many as you can.

The body, norms and stigma

Virtual and actual social identity

Coherent self-presentation is sustained by a relation between what Goffman terms virtual social identity and actual social identity....