|
|
Re: Mutilation as a legitimate object of inquiryAdrienne Dearmas (DearmasA@AOL.COM)Mon, 15 Jul 1996 14:35:19 -0400
writes: > Let's be more specific, and consider some concrete examples of > body mutilations/markings: > A. Perforation of the ureter in Australian aborigine males > B. Removal of the clitoris in African native women > C. Circumcision of infant males in Jewish/ANE cultures > D. Foot binding, head binding, etc. > E. Maori (and other) facial scarring and tattooing > F. Tattoos voluntarily acquired by seaman, soldiers, and > related groups (outlaw bikers, prisoners, etc.) > G. Other decorative mutilations, cultural sanctioned or > traditional, such as earlobe piercing > H. Flagellation, hair shirts, etc. when self-inflicted > I. Role-related castration (eunuchs and singers) > J. Mutilation and tattooing beyond usual cultural norms > K. Mutiliation as punishment (whippings, amputations and > ear lobe cropping) > > A, B, C, and K and perhaps E are involved with rituals of one > sort or another. D, F, G, H, and J are not. I have to revisit this. Footbinding (D) is a highly ritualized practice which is one of the few mutilations which requires maintenance. Sorry, you don't get that one. (G) Earlobe piercing (at least in the South) is considered a rite of passage and incurs a small but nevertheless important ritual, usually restricted to the women of the family. As I requested in the other post, I need clarification on (J) in order to respond. > > > The regions of the body selected for this mutilation is often > > identical to that of especial significance with respect to the > > localisation of vital or ontological essence or substance. > > A, B, C, I, yes. D, E, J, maybe. F, G, H, K, no. > <snip>> > > The marking or mutilation of > > the body may be associated then with the control or 'domestication' (for > > want of a better term) of vital or ontological essence in the service of > > entrance into a ritually and socially defined role. > > A, B, sort of. I, definitely. Others, not at all. If I understand the point Kristian is making in discussing domestication (and I like the idea), then mgm (A&C&I), fgm (B), footbinding (D), cranial deformation (D), some forms of tattooing and scarrification and so on are all a process of domesticating the essence of the individual . Briefly, uncircumcised women cannot get married. Nor could Chinese women with unbound feet. Assuming that a woman's purpose is to be married and have children (Don't flame me, remember the context here!), her mutilations are most definately domestication into her social role. A thought - and I am_ not_ being nasty. I get the impression that it is only Western forms of mutilations that are boring to Mike and that only those concerning males which are important. I base this on his breakdown of mutilations with merit as posted on 7-14-96. Am I wrong? - Adrienne
|