The Body Was An Absent Presence In Sociology Case Study

7. The body was an “absent presence” in sociology because it was in the background of sociology but was not specifically acknowledged as being important. Early sociologists were concerned with the human mind but really didn’t address the physical aspects of the body. In the passage Shilling states, “it was only when sociology began to question the divide between nature and society that theorist conceptualized the body as central both to the human actor and to the sociological enterprise.” (Shilling 17). In other words, Shilling is saying that early sociologists believed that nature and society didn’t interact. This phenomenon occurred because sociologist like Durkheim believed that the body was biological and thus a part of nature. Sociologist

Two of the developments that Shilling identifies are the feminist movement and the “crisis” about our knowledge about our bodies. First, feminism was a social movement that was created because of bodies. The reason Shilling gave for feminisms relation to bodies is it, “formed the context for a more general project among women to 'reclaim ' their bodies from male control and abuse.” (Shilling 28). Basically the whole movement was centered on the issue of who is in control of bodies. Feminism is a very powerful influence in a lot of women’s lives today, especially the political policies that are concern access to acquire safe abortion. Since this movement has made many people realize that bodies are an important issue in their daily lives bodies have become a popular topic of discussion. Next, knowledge about bodies became an important contribution to the prominence of the body because as more people came to learn more about the body the way people treated their bodies became a controversial topic. Shilling explained that knowledge effected bodies because of, “Our ability to control the body has continued apace as a result of advances in transplant surgery, artificial insemination, in vitro fertilization and plastic surgery” (Shilling 33). He stated that since we are able to do so much with our bodies we think of them like they are machines. This was of thinking had lead to, “An additional manifestation of this crisis in our knowledge of bodies can be found in the

The dichotomy that Davis suggests existed prior to the age of the norm was the ideal and the grotesque. In the earlier system only Gods could be ideal, therefore, it was considered impossible for a person to have an ideal body. Davis claims, “there is in such societies no demand that populations have bodies that conform to the ideal” (Davis 10). The fact that there wasn’t a pressure for people to have bodies that met a certain standard is different from the normative system. In a normative system there is a standard that people can be reasonably expected to meet since it is just comparing one person to the general population. In the previous system people were more accepting of their imperfections since ideal was deemed unattainable. Davis asserts, “The grotesque were on the facades of cathedrals throughout Europe” (Davis 11). In other words, people’s flaws weren’t hidden away in shame, unlike the normative system. The rise of people normalcy created a body standard that was achievable causing individuals to feel pressure to be average. Davis quotes Quetelet to illustrate this point, “an individual who epitomized in himself, at a given time, all the qualities of the average man, would represent at once all the greatness, beauty and goodness of that being” (Davis 12). This means that the more average a person was the better that person seemed. Having a good body standard meant there was also a bad body standard, thus the idea of a disabled body was cemented. The normal