Human as plastic

I empathize with Bordo's frustration in her commentary on the plasticization of the human body. It seems that the general public sees no issue with the alteration of the body--either its surface area or its interior--when pursuing a sense of social esteem.

The argument that such effacement suggests a sexist, or patriarchal, or racist, or politicizing nature is often rebuked; "what is wrong with wanting to look better?" Not that I don't also suffer from the same ideology; I also want to "look better" by losing weight and keeping my features groomed in a socially acceptable manner.

However, it's in the very wording that the ideology appears: people want to look better. What is better? Thin? Pale? Blue-eyed? Straight-haired? All the possible answers describing a "better" visual appeal means that there is a current sociological viewpoint of a Platonic ideal, a standard for which to strive. That standard has to be set by something, and it serves as an attempt to "normalize the subject" (Bordo 1103). Such unconscious concern with "obsessive body-praxis" (Bordo 1111) reveals a postmodern disregard.

The prevailing viewpoint also suppresses the knowledge of racial differences; one's eyes can now be made another color besides the "brown" that somehow is seen as negative, one's hair can be straightened so that it differs from others'.

There is, I understand, a counter-argument here: that to modify one's appearance is to create a different sense of self, an "other" that is sexually appealing because of its exoticism or its novelty. Again, though, exoticism means a departure from the norm.



Works Cited

Bordo, Susan. "'Material Girl': The Effacements of Postmodern Culture"