The Social Body - Essay Example

? ‘...the social body constrains how the physical body is perceived and experienced’ (Shilling, The Body and Social Theory, 2003, p.65). How far do you agree with the above statement? Choose at least two examples of the body in culture ‘...the social body constrains how the physical body is perceived and experienced’ (Shilling, The Body and Social Theory, 2003, p.65). How far do you agree with the above statement? Choose at least two examples of the body in culture The body could be defined as the constituent of numerous elements making a single component present within a society. Traditionally, the body has remained associated with biological functions exhibited among living things. Modern times, however, have seen the development of various sociological studies; consequently creating different perceptions of bodies. In these modern times, the body has become a fundamental component of political, economic and social systems making societies (Shilling 2012). The bodies remain the functions utilised in implementing necessary changes within the social perspectives of different environments. These developments have resulted in the body being divided into different sections; the social and physical body. The physical component remains as that which can be manifested physically. It is the tangible element of a body within different perspectives. While both components co-exist in creating a solitary unit, they present significant differences when analysed properly. The physical body could be presented as that which manifests the social body, however, these elements co-exist and become difficult to separate completely. The social body could be defined as one of the numerous bodies which can be identified under the field of body studies. This body defines the sociological perspective, while exploring the sociological implications of various perspectives within social issues. Under the modern society, the body has become an element of political and cultural activity, in numerous societies. There continues to be increased interest in studying various aspects of the social body with regard to the physical body. The desire to comprehend the relationship between sociological and physical bodies continues to increase the number of studies seeking to demystify the body. While the physical body remains what can be perceived from outside, the social body reside within the physical body. The social body can only become displayed through the physical component of the same body. Realistically, the social body’s existence completely depends on availability of the physical body. The flexibility of the physical body continues to become associated with the presence of various social beliefs held by individuals. The social beliefs contribute significantly towards the behaviours exhibited by individuals within different settings (Turner 2012). The behaviours become compositions of identity to the society within proximity of specific bodies. They become accustomed to the physical body, though they certainly result from different perceptions of the social body. The social body is defined by the immediate environment hosting the particular body. The social body remains incapable of presenting itself to the society; hence, the manipulation of the social body occurs through the physical element of the body. The stability of the social body could potentially affect the physical body status. Through this developed relationship, the perception of the physical body component remains dependent on the social being. The effects of the society on individuals normally affect the social element, which in-turn becomes experienced through changes experienced within the physical body element (Schilder 1999). The social body part continues to become a constitutive component of the self, which becomes displayed through the physical body to the immediate environment. Social modernisation continues to increase the disenchantment of traditional religious frameworks, depicting ontological existence of the social body residing outside the individual. Modern societies and sociologists continue to become enchanted with possibility of the social body existing within the physical body. This enchantment immensely supports the theory of the social body affecting perception and experience of the physical body component. Increased understanding of the social body could contribute to proper comprehension of the physical body component, in realistic view. The knowledge that social bodies remain fundamental in providing perception and experience of the physical body remains important in establishing the control exerted by social body upon the physical body. A paradoxical concern becomes exhibited when physical bodies become affected by illnesses. The social component of the body becomes totally incapacitated in dealing with challenges caused by diseases upon the physical body. While the social component of the body exhibits surmountable control upon the physical component, the incapacitation under these circumstances appears to support the notion of the social body residing outside the individual (Turner 2008). The effects of the social component fail to become exhibited under certain difficult moments experienced by the physical body. The physical body could therefore become identified as having independence of existence from the social body. The social body appears to contribute towards minimal bodily adjustments experienced within the physical component. The overall experience and perception of the physical body, remains controlled by external factors, within the immediate environment (Turner 1995). Inclusion of the social body among the contributing factors of perception and experience would attribute existence of the social body outside the individual. Numerous elements of the body remain prevalent within the environment, and contribute towards experience of the physical body. The social body might affect the physical body perception as the social becomes manifested through perceptions of the physical. The experience of the physical component by an individual, however, remains limited to environmental factors. The body could be identified as constituting two major components; social and physical bodies. The social resides within the physical but remains independent in existence of the physical. Though the social body could have significant effect upon the physical component, this effect cannot ultimately result in the overall perception and experience of the physical component (Slingerland 2008). These two bodies have significant effects on each other because of their co-existence within the same environment. Both components, however, could be identified as being determined by the environments of existence. If an individual moves to a different environment, both the physical and social bodies will experience significant changes. The experienced changes cannot be attributed to either body causing significant changes over the other, but rather to environmental factors presenting significant changes on both components. The body, within the twentieth century, became a fundamental component of political, social, cultural and economic interventions. Within the contemporary societies, struggles continue to affect the amount of control exhibited by bodies in relation to cultural elements affecting body functioning. These developments have contributed significantly towards the development of the social body within various environments like work (Hancock et al. 2000). The cultural body has created a linguistic challenge in defining the body outside biological frameworks. Sociological inquiries continue to present modern definitions of body. The intellectual roots of cultural body, however, remain diverse with linkage being associated to feminism and dualism, which remain notable phenomenological theories linked to the element of cultural body. The somatic society, within which the cultural body exists, presents challenges expressed through bodily features. Within the economic environment, bodies become experienced through various economic functions affecting the functioning of the bodies. Naturally, bodies remain controlled by desired ends of specified functions. Within the economic environment, there are various desirable outcomes, which bodies seek to achieve. The targets specified by the bodies depend on the physical capacity for undertaking required operations. Setting of the targets, results from desires of the social bodies, while actualisation depends on capacity of physical bodies (Carey et al. 2012). Social bodies remain encompassed within the large society having common perspectives and requirements. The economic society could be identified as constituting numerous social bodies whose capacity remains dependent on their physical capability. The physical component remains a measurable feature while the social element can only be perceived through physical presence. The environment constructs different components which govern the societal components operating within the environment. The society normally operates under some norms, which might vary in a similar society operating within different environments. The society normally contributes to the development of the social body experience. The experience occurring within the social body significantly affects the overall capacity for the physical body as these fundamentally affect the functioning of physical bodies (Archer 2007). Cultural components determine how individuals behave within certain settings, but this might be a false manifestation of the physical body elements. External observers could develop perceptions based on the behaviours exhibited under these conditions; hence receiving false perception. The created perception under these circumstances results from societal influence and the impact remains independent of the social body influence. While the social body could be perceived as affecting the experience and perception of the physical body, this notion remains partially true under certain circumstances. The social body resides within the physical element and could present various effects on the hosting component. The independence of these bodies, however, causes significant levels of autonomy within the bodies (Blondel 1991). The existence of the two within similar environments contributes to the capacity for change to become experienced in both elements. The occurring changes, however, cannot be purely associated to one body affecting the other, but the overall environmental factors contributing to observable changes within bodies. Existing relationship between these two bodies remains present but the manifestation of each bodily experience and perception remains independent of the influence of the other body. References Archer, M, 2007, Making Our Way Through the World: Human Reflexivity and Social Mobility, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Blondel, E 1991, Nietzsche, the body and culture: Philosophy as a philological genealogy, Stanford, Stanford University Press. Carey, A, Haugen, L, Mullen, J, Flavin, M & McQuillan, L 2012, “The Body in Culture and Society”, PROTEUS: A Journal of Ideas, vol. 28 no. 1, pp. 1-60. Hancock, P 2000, The body, culture and society: An Introduction, Buckingham, Open University Press. Schilder, P 1999, The Image and Appearance of the Human Body:Studies in the Constructive Energies of the Psyche, London, Routledge. Shilling, C 2012, The Body and Social Theory, London, Sage. Slingerland, E 2008, What science offers the humanities: Integrating body and culture, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Turner, B 2012, Routledge Handbook of Body Studies, London, Routledge. Turner, B 2008, The Body and Society: Explorations in Social Theory, London, SAGE Publications. Turner, T 1995, “Social Body and Embodied Subject: Bodiliness, Subjectivity, and Sociality among the Kayapo”, Cultural Anthropology, vol. 10 no. 2, pp. 143-170. Read More