Is the Body Ownable
The way Jennifer Church approaches the issue of body ownership in “Ownership and the Body”, it sounds as though that we own our bodies is a given fact, and the controversy is over what follows from this and why it is important to have a discussion of this fact. I, however, intend to argue that it is a bad move to allow for the idea of self-ownership (or any sort of ownership of subjects), that it is more likely to perpetuate problems than to solve them to think in this way, and that the belief in the possibility of body/self-ownership is rooted primarily in linguistic ambiguities (“property” vs. “properties”, different senses of “mine”, etc.).
Mine
We will begin with the seemingly innocuous assertion, “my body is mine”. 1[1]This is a truism only if “mine” is not construed as “being that which I own”. I do not own my mother, my boss, or my sneeze. In some cases, “mine” only means that something pertains to me, not that it necessarily belongs to me in the sense in which a product of my labour might. Surely a slave who says, “my master,” is not trying to reverse the relationship (a relationship which is, by my account, illegitimate to begin with).
Now, Church does want to allow, in a sense, for me to be able to own my mother. She certainly would allow my mother, initially, to own me.2[2] One can make a claim, by her account, to some degree of ownership of another person based on the extent to which that person has become part of one’s self.3[3] Her example for this is the right that one’s close friends and relatives have to make decisions for one who is incapacitated. I do not see how the concern of close ones can be taken as a form of ownership. While we hope that it is our closest friends and family who will look out for us when we are unable to look out for ourselves, in no way are they granted the rights that one would have over property.4[4]
I take ownership to include unrestricted private use of an object. Of course my definition excludes the possibility of owning a
...y within the United States and personal property used predominantly outside the United States are not property of a like kind.
In John Perry’s “dialogue on personal identity and immorality”, Dave Cohen and Sam Miller visit Gretchen Weirob in the hospital because of Weirob’s injury in a motorcycle accident, they raise a discussion on personal identity. Cohen later takes up issues raised in the case where Julia’s brain is taken from her deteriorated body and placed on the healthy body of Mary whose brain has been destroyed. Therefore Mary has her own body with Julia’s memory and personality. The case proposes an argument
In conclusion, readers identify with the human form and use it as a vehicle for defamiliarization to show the mechanical functions they serve themselves and others. The characters in “Bloodchild” behave as part of a process and show a lack of respect for their human qualities. As they desensitize their bodies, they allow the Tlic to engage with them in an unbalanced power relationship. Then, the Tlic interact with them in a sheltering way and inhibit their thought process. Through this interaction chain, Butler effectively conveys that the way humans treat themselves will dictate how others treat them. As the afterword said, “Bloodchild” is not about slavery; it’s about the relationships humans take on because they allow themselves to be
Hunter, Frederic. “Following the footsteps of Flannery O’Connor”. Christian Science Monitor 5 Sept. 2008: 19 Biography in Context. Web. 30 July 2015.
... own. If the master does not have sufficient wealth to facilitate this, she or he must sell, hire out, or manumit the slave as ordered. Masters were encouraged to educate slaves, to teach them how to write/read, etc. Slave-owners had no right in harming a slave under Islamic rule, unless the slave had committed a crime, in which the penalty would be lessened. In America, slaves had no such right to demand the sustenance to be of the same quality the master had, the treatment of slaves in the United States was generally brutal and degrading. Whipping, execution and sexual abuse were common ways in making a slave ‘behave’. Slaves were not educated as to not encourage them to escape or rebel. Punishment was most often meted out in response to disobedience or perceived infractions, but slaves were also sometimes abused to assert the dominance of their master or overseer.
O’Connor, Flannery. “A Good Man Is Hard To Find And Other Short Stories.” Literature: An
Slaves are stripped of information about themselves, as depicted in Douglass’ unknowing of his own birthday. This alone is significant in removing one’s self-identity, for slaves have no knowledge of their own age. Furthermore, slaves were separated from their families, taking away one of the only senses of comfort and belonging in the harsh plantation. Douglass also references a moment where Colonel Lloyd does not even recognize his own slave, because he has so many of them. This is also supported by Douglass describing how quickly slaves were replaced if they committed a misdemeanor. This suggests that Colonel Lloyd sees his slaves as replaceable objects/tools, rather than actual human beings. Perhaps an even more moving moment was when Douglass was sent to be “valued” with other slaves and ranked with “horses, sheep, and swine,” following the death of his former Master. Douglass cleverly uses parallelism by pairing each animal with man, woman, and child, respectively. This shows the slave holder’s thought process when valuing each human/animal: they are equal. In this situation, Douglass describes his indignation by commenting on the brutalizing effects of slavery on the slave and the slave holder alike. So, by equating humans to animals, they are not only stripped of their self-identity as individuals, but also their self-identity as
“But the body is also directly involved in a political field; power relations have an immediate hold upon it; they invest it, mark it, train it, torture it, force it to carry out tasks, to perform ceremonies, t...
The female body is often described as a temple: a place that requires care and love from the woman who owns it. Ownership of one’s body for women in the seventeenth century, however, was non-existent. Women did not have the right to argue against men’s decisions: even when it involved their own lives. The Duchess in John Webster’s The Duchess of Malfi decides she no longer wishes to live under anyone and takes it upon herself to get remarried. Despite numerous warnings from her siblings, the Duchess attempts to claim control over her life. Her attempt, unfortunately, fails due to several factors such as her physical body, her family, and her status. This begs the question of who in this power struggle truly owned the Duchess, if not herself.
Stephens, Martha. The Question of Flannery O?Connor. Ed. University Press. Louisiana State Press, 1973. 189-205.
The mind-body problem has kept philosophers busy ever since Descartes proposed it in the sixteenth century. The central question posed by the mind-body problem is the relationship between what we call the body and what we call the mind—one private, abstract, and the origin of all thoughts; the other public, concrete, and the executor of the mind’s commands. Paul Churchland, a proponent of the eliminative materialist view, believes that the solution to the mind-body problem lies in eliminating the single concept that allows this problem to perpetuate—the folk psychological concept of mental states. Churchland argues that the best theory of mind is a materialistic one, not a folk psychological one. Unlike other materialist views such as identity theory, Churchland wants to remove the idea of mental states from our ontology because mental states cannot be matched 1:1 with corresponding physical states. This is why Churchland’s view is called eliminative materialism—it is a materialistic account of the mind that eliminates the necessity for us to concern ourselves with mental events. At first this eliminative materialism appears to be a good solution to the mind-body problem because we need not concern ourselves with that problem if we adopt Churchland’s view. However, there is a basic flaw in his argument that raises the question of whether we should actually give up folk psychology. In this paper, we will first walk through the premises of Churchland’s argument, and then we will explore whether Churchland does a suitable job of justifying our adoption of eliminative materialism.
In everyday life it appears that the body is overlooked in its relation to the mind. This notion of body and mind separation is not something that necessarily sits well with people. The debate can sit on either scientific knowledge or religious beliefs. Currently this is what we deal with when this sort of debate occurs. With the various belief structures prevalent in humans we can’t assume argument is stronger than another.
The female body is the site of extensive theoretical discourse and intense political struggle; it has become the expressions of culture but also has become a site for social and political control. Through history the female body has been the site of discrimination, exploitation, abuse and oppression. She has also occupied a dominant position in the discourse of beauty; its imagery being pervasive and manipulated throughout literature, visual arts and religions and also the site of scientific and psychological investigation. Through historically male dominated fields of expertise and political power, the female body has become the subject to conscious and unconscious patriarchal influences.
Structural functionalism is the macro-analysis of society that supports the assumption that society is a stable and orderly system. This approach sees society as a complex structure that works together to function properly. The society shares a common set of beliefs, norms, values, and behavior patterns called a societal consensus. The society will institute social
The word “slavery” brings back horrific memories of human beings. Bought and sold as property, and dehumanized with the risk and implementation of violence, at times nearly inhumane. The majority of people in the United States assumes and assures that slavery was eliminated during the nineteenth century with the Emancipation Proclamation. Unfortunately, this is far from the truth; rather, slavery and the global slave trade continue to thrive till this day. In fact, it is likely that more individuals are becoming victims of human trafficking across borders against their will compared to the vast number of slaves that we know in earlier times. Slavery is no longer about legal ownership asserted, but instead legal ownership avoided, the thought provoking idea that with old slavery, slaves were maintained, compared to modern day slavery in which slaves are nearly disposable, under the same institutionalized systems in which violence and economic control over the disadvantaged is the common way of life. Modern day slavery is insidious to the public but still detrimental if not more than old American slavery.