We wore our corporeal marker in different
situations, hours and places; in-group and individually. We recorded our
individual and group experiences using text in individual journals and, for the
last phase of the project, we recorded the whole group and the reactions we
got. The recorded experiment served us to confirm our previous findings and to
add another element that caused reactions in people by itself: the camera.
Along a week and a half, we carried out approximately eight hours of research,
distributed in the following way:
- Five hours of individual research, one hour
and a quarter for each member of the group
- Two hours of group research (not recorded)
- One hour of recorded group research
The locations for wearing the corporeal marker
varied. For the individual research each member of the group chose her own
places in and off campus. On the other hand, for the group research we chose
places with high concentration of students. The locations ranged from
consolidated places like the library or the front room; to spaces of transition
like the escalator in Baker Center. For the last part of the project we went
over many of the places that we visited before, to establish similarities or
differences with previous experiences.
Our corporeal market mostly created an individual boundary, in the sense
that no one prevent us of doing something or being in certain place, but the
way reacted to our presence made us feel out of place. Our presence was not
limited by any type of rule, but by people´s reactions. These can be reflected
in our journals, like “The corporeal marker experience created a boundary by
the way of disguising our looks to create an unusual experience” (Phally). The
most dramatic reaction we had was people staring at us, no questions asked by
strangers. People who knew us did ask.
The entire research group agreed that the
reactions were more obvious or notable when we were in spaces in-group,
compared to the non-dramatic reactions we got while being alone wearing the
corporeal marker. A single sick-looking person is nothing serious, but four of
them walking together changes the situation completely, to the point that we
might be able to spread some disease. People tried to control their curiosity
when we were in-group. On the other hand, when we where alone, they considered
that it was right to express their curiosity. Even though the reactions were
more notorious, they were still mild for what we would have expected from
people. As a group we attributed this to lack of interest but also to sense of
politeness. This attitude lead to another question: where is the limit between
being concerned of other human being and being invasive in that same human
being life? Words that reflect these feelings can be found in our journals: “people
hardly looked at me¨(Freda), “walking past me” (Phally), “minimal eye-contact”
(Mackenzie), “being observed but also ignored” (Majo).
During the experiment we were conscious that
the mask not was permanent or seen as extreme. If we would have to wear it all
the time, in a context were is not usual we will tried to make it more
aesthetically appealing. Plain masks often are associated with hospitals,
diseases and pulchritude (e.g. “So surgical” – Majo). Adding some color can
change them, or at least the image they present to the exterior world. It
changes the perception and the meaning. Just like the scrubs doctors that work
with children differ from others, being classified as more child-friendly and
less intimidating.
We did not felt our mobility was restricted
by the use of the masks. However we experienced a feeling related to being
sick, or being seen as sick. “Remind me of the AIDs Movement” (Mackenzie).
Being perceived as contagious or a threat to other people can make someone’s
mobility to be prevented in the interest of a greater good. Control over groups
that present specific diseases is common, for research purposes for example.
Some decades ago, the eugenicist movement argued that people with mental
disabilities or behavior that was not seen as proper, had to be closely
monitored and controlled to prevent them of infecting society.
McDowell, “In and Out of Place, Bodies and
Embodiment” (McDowell, 1999) can clearly relate to this project. But also the
readings of Cresswell (2004), Hansen (2007) and Fluri (2017), where they
discuss how the spaces become places when given a meaning, how bodies are
places themselves and how certain activities are characterized as “normal”.
Therefore bodies can be defined by the embodied person his/her/them-self, but
can also be defined from an exterior perspective, one that is heavily rooted in
social constructs pertinent to that context.
References:
Cresswell, Tim. 2004. Place: A Short Introduction. Oxford:
Blackwell Publishing. Pp. 1-12.
Fluri, Jennifer L. 2017. “The Body, Performance, and Space.” Pp.
25-46 in Feminist Spaces: Gender and Geography in a Global Context by Ann M.
Oberhauser, Jennifer L. Fluri, Risa Whitson and Sharlene Mollett. New York:
Routledge.
Hansen, Nancy and Chris Philo. 2007. “The Normality of Doing
Things Differently: Bodies, Spaces And Disability Geography.” Tijdschrift voor
Economische en Sociale Geografie 98(4):493-506.
McDowell, Linda. 1999. "In and Out of Place:
Bodies and Embodiment." Chapter 2 in Gender,
Identity, and Place: Understanding Feminist Geographies. Minneapolis:
University of Minnesota Press.
Comments
Post a Comment