Living with a partly amputated face, doing facial difference
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.7146/kkf.v31i2.127871Keywords:
facial difference, disfigurement, disability, prosthesis, enactment, embodimentAbstract
Disability studies as an academic field has long sought to highlight the lived experiences of people with disabilities, thereby giving voice to a population that has been the object of much discourse but rarely its subject. Despite the field’s engagement with various conditions, there is limited scholarly work on the personal meanings of amputation and prosthetics usage. Experiences associated with the loss of part(s) of the face, in particular, have remained uncharted. In this article, I address this lacuna by drawing on interviews with twenty affected individuals. Situating their accounts in contemporary scholarship on bodily difference within the humanities and social sciences, I demonstrate that losing part(s) of the face calls for various ways of ‘doing’ difference in everyday life. This empirical-philosophical analysis serves three purposes. On an empirical level, the article unpacks the everyday doing of facial difference, showing it simultaneously involves social, embodied, and material dimensions. On a practical level, this integrative understanding of facial difference complements prevalent approaches to ‘disfi gurement’ that construe it as an individual—biomedical or psychosocial—problem. On a theoretical level the article clarifi es and advances the concept of doing, which plays a key role in gender studies, phenomenology, and science and technology studies.
References
Aarabi, S., Longaker, M. T. and Gurtner, G. C. 2007. Hypertrophic scar formation following burns and trauma: New approaches to treatment. PLoS Medicine. 4(9), 1464–1470. doi: 10.1371/journal. pmed.0040234.
De Boer, M. and Slatman, J. 2018. The mediated breast: Technology, agency, and breast cancer. Human Studies. 41(2), 275–292. doi: 10.1007/s10746-017-9445-5.
Booher, A. K. 2010. Docile bodies, supercrips, and the plays of prosthetics. IJFAB: International Journal of Feminist Approaches to Bioethics. 3(2), 63–89. doi: 10.3138/ijfab.3.2.63.
Butler, J. 2007. Gender trouble: Feminism and the subversion of identity. London and New York: Routledge.
Butler, J. 2011. Bodies that matter: On the discursive limits of ‘sex’. London and New York: Routledge.
Eyler, J. R. 2013. Disability and Prosthesis in L. Frank Baum’s The Wonderful Wizard of Oz. Children’s Literature Association Quarterly. 38(3), 319–334. doi: 10.1353/chq.2013.0042.
Garland-Thomson, R. 2006. Ways of staring. Journal of Visual Culture. 5(2), 173–192. doi: 10.1177/1470412906066907.
Garland-Thomson, R. 2009. Staring: How we look. New York: Oxford University Press.
Garland-Thomson, R. 2011. Misfi ts: A feminist materialist disability concept. Hypatia. 26(3), 591–609. doi: 10.1111/j.1527-2001.2011.01206.x.
Goffman, E. 1967. Interaction ritual: Essays in face-to-face behavior. New York: Doubleday
Hall, M. L. and Orzada, B. T. 2013, Expressive Prostheses: Meaning and Signifi cance. The Journal of Design, Creative Process & the Fashion Industry. 5(1), 9-32. doi: 10.2752/175693813X13559997788682.
Jain, L. 1999. The prosthetic imagination: Enabling and disabling the prosthesis trope. Science, Technology & Human Values. 24(1), 31–54. doi: 10.1177/016224399902400103.
Käll, L. F. 2015. A path between voluntarism and determinism: Tracing elements of phenomenology in Judith Butler’s account of performativity. Lambda Nordica: Tidskrift om homosexualitet. 20(2–3), 23–48.
Kurzman, S. L. 2001. Presence and prosthesis: A response to Nelson and Wright. Cultural Anthropology. 16(3), 374–387. doi: 10.1525/can.2001.16.3.374.
Martindale, A-M. and Fisher, P. 2019. Disrupted faces, disrupted identities? Embodiment, life stories and acuired facial ‘disfi gurement’. Sociology of Health and Illness. 41(8), 1503-1519. doi: 10.1111/1467-9566.12973.
Mathias, Z. and Harcourt, D. 2014. Dating and intimate relationships of women with below-knee amputation: an exploratory study. Disability and Rehabilitation. 36(5), 395–402. doi: 10.3109/09638288.2013.797509.
Mauss, M. 1979. Sociology and Psychology: Essays. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Mitchell, D. T. and Snyder, S. L. 2000. Narrative prosthesis: Disability and the dependencies of discourse. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Mol, A. 2002. The body multiple: Ontology in medical practice. Durham: Duke University Press.
Mol, A. and Law, J. 2004. Embodied action, enacted bodies: The example of hypoglycaemia. Body & Society. 10(2–3), 43–62. doi: 10.22394/0869-5377-2017-1-233-259.
Murray, C. D. 2009. Being like everybody else: The personal meanings of being a prosthesis user. Disability and Rehabilitation. 31(7), 573–581.
Murray, C. D. and Forshaw, M. J. 2013. The experience of amputation and prosthesis use for adults: a metasynthesis. Disability and Rehabilitation. 35(14), 1133–1142. doi: 10.3109/09638288.2012.723790.
Neumann, B. 2010. Being prosthetic in the First World War and Weimar Germany. Body & Society. 16(3), 93–126. doi: 10.1177/1357034X10373403.
Noland, C. 2009. Agency and embodiment: Performing gestures/producing culture. Cambride Massachutts/ Londen: Harvard University Press.
Norlyk, A., Martinsen, B. and Kjaer-Petersen, K. 2013. Living with clipped wings—Patients’ experience of losing a leg. International Journal of Qualitative Studies on Health and Well-being. 8(1). doi: 10.3402/
qhw.v8i0.21891.
Ott, K., Serlin, D. and Mihm, S. 2002. Artifi cial parts, practical lives: Modern histories of prosthetics. New York: NYU Press.
Poole, J., Shildrick, M., McKeever, P., Abbey, S. and Ross, H. 2009. ‘You might not feel like yourself’: Heart Transplants, Identity and Ethics. In: Murray, S. and Holmes, D, eds. Critical Interventions in the Ethics of
Healthcare: Challenging the Principle of Autonomy in Bioethics. Farnham: Ashgate, 33–45.
Rodrigues, S. 2018. To learn the world again: Examining the impact of elective breast surgery on body schema. Human Studies. 41(2), 255–273. doi: 10.1007/s10746-018-9462-z.
Rumsey, N. and Harcourt, D. 2004. Body image and disfi gurement: Issues and interventions, Body image. 1(1), 83–97. doi: 10.1016/S1740-1445(03)00005-6.
Shildrick, M. 2008. The Critical Turn in Feminist Bioethics: The Case of Heart Transplantation. International Journal of Feminist Approaches to Bioethics. 1(1): 28–47.
Shildrick, M., McKeever, P., Abbey, S., Poole, j. and Ross, H. 2009. Troubling Dimensions of Heart Transplantation. Medical Humanities (BMJ Supplement). 35(1): 35–38.
Sobchack, V. 2006. A leg to stand on: Prosthetics, metaphor, and materiality. In: Smith, M. and Morra, J.,
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
![Creative Commons License](http://i.creativecommons.org/l/by-nc/4.0/88x31.png)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
Publications in Women, Gender and Research are licensed under Creative Commons License: CC Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0