The Theories Analysing Body Modification In Relation To An Individual And Society
Society is becoming more globalized, social norms are shifting, what is seen as socially acceptable today for example tattoos were seen as unacceptable 50 years ago. Therefore, the balance of an individual and societies interest will always be one of difficulty. An individual may have to compromise however to what extent will society exert its moral stronghold over an individuals’ liberty? According to Jeremy Bentham “It is vain to talk of the interest of the community, without understanding what is the interest of the individual. ” Here Bentham upholds the significance and importance of the individuals interests over the community or society and suggests that doing otherwise is incomprehensible. Governments attempt to fulfil both individual and societies interests. In regard to body modification individuals may believe that they have a right to cover their body with tattoos however societies as a whole has interests in upholding social norms. In different societies there are different resolutions, for example in Denmark it is unlawful to tattoo someones face, hand or neck, however in Iran the laws on body modification are more extreme as it is punishable to possess tattoos due to religious reasons. America however, has more lenient body modification laws as they are only illegal for minors. Despite the complexity of balancing both individual and societies interest at large, there will always be a party who feels dissatisfied with the outcome, one may insist that bodily integrity ; which is the inviolability of the physical body and emphasizes the importance of personal autonomy and the self- determination of human beings over their own bodies is very important for individuality, however, the other party may argue that social norms are necessary in order to prevent society from disintegrating. Overall balance is essential for a cohesive society. There are substantial theories which provide insight to body modifications as well as society and the individual.
Emile Durkheim the founding father of Functionalism illustrates his concept of social facts, which is a way of acting, whether forced or not, which exert over the individual an external constraint. It is paramount to identify which body modifications are seen as extreme and those that aren’t considered as extreme according to the definition of social facts. Social facts establish somewhat of an informal dress code governing individuals subconsciously and regulating which body modifications are seen as violations. Conflict theories are also applicable to body modifications as it is the upper class/bourgeois; a term used by Marxists to identify the upper class, who control the definition of social norms. There is a conflict between what these social elites define as acceptable and what the “modified deviants” believe, this results in conflict which may be disastrous for social order.
According to the social contract theory proposed by Jean Jacques Rousseau, in order for an individual to become part of a society and enjoy the benefits they must give up certain freedoms and accede to the general will. This theory highlights how civil society supresses individual interests, opinions and liberty for the interests of society. Aristotle believes that the needs of citizenship takes precedence over concerns about the individual rights, therefore it is evident that society has the power to exert control over individual liberty. John Stuart Mills’ most influential work was On liberty. In On liberty he applies his philosophical system of utilitarianism which is that actions are correct if they benefit the majority so the greatest amount of good for the greatest number. John Stuart Mill clarifies the significance of the individual over society he states that individual is the sovereign however Rousseau states that society is the sovereign. It is clear that utilitarian’s such as Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill favour the individuals interests over that of society.
Female Genital Mutilation is considered as a form of body modification it is defined by the World Health Organization (WHO) to include: “procedures that intentionally alter or cause injury to female genital organs for non-medical reasons”. The law on female genital mutilation is unambiguous, the act came into force on 3 March 2004 and was amended by sections 70 to 75 Serious crimes Act 2015. Section 70 to 72 which came into force in 3 May 2015, and which extended the scope of extra-territorial offences. Offences of female genital mutilation states that It is a criminal offence to mutilate the whole or any part of a girl's labia majora, labia minora or clitoris. The practice of female genital mutilation is considered to be due to cultural reasons, “a rite of passage into adulthood. ” It is understood that the prevalence is due to lack of education.
Female genital mutilation constitutes a violation of Article 25 of the United Nations Universal declaration of Human rights. FGM is alarmingly present in the UK despite having the belief that it is only prominent in Africa and Asia. 9,179 attendances were reported at NHS Trusts and GP practices where FGM was identified. The case of RE F AND X (CHILDREN) entailed a female genital mutilation protection order which had been made in the standard terms and the children had been made wards of the court. The mother was directed to take all reasonable steps to arrange for the children's return from Sudan to the UK. This case illustrates United Kingdoms’ stance when it comes to FGM, this abhorrent practice which is still subjected on young girls despite worldwide campaigns to eradicate the practice is masked under the banner of “cultural tradition. ”
The issue of whether the state should allow different people to have different rights over body modification depending on their cultural background is one of controversy, mainly because this concept of assigning different rights to individuals may be seen as discriminatory. There are valid reasons as to why or why not people should be given different rights over body modification due to their cultural background. Some may argue that their cultural background is what forms their identity and they may believe that their interests outweigh any of societies as they uphold individual liberty.
John Stuart mill may argue that the individual is the sovereign whereas Rousseau may argue that society is the sovereign therefore disagreeing with the notion that people should be given different rights to cater to their cultural background. The argument of personal autonomy which “is an idea that is generally understood to refer to the capacity to be one’s own person, to live one’s life according to reasons and motives that are taken as one’s own and not the product of manipulative or distorting external forces” this may prove to be a powerful argument, as individuals may argue that personal autonomy is vital in their quest for liberty, on the other hand doesn’t the influence of culture override personal autonomy?
Citizens may argue that society is changing and that appeasing society is no longer the “norm. More and more people are trying to break free from the mould and are exploring their individuality. Therefore, the state should protect and serve the interests of the individual. However according to the Utilitarian perspective which is the greatest amount of good for the greatest number, society may outweigh the individual. The implications of the state allowing different rights to different people over body modification depending on cultural background may be drastic for example in the case of FGM whereby certain members of a particular cultural group may impose harmful procedures on younger members of the group.
According to the book female genital mutilation by Comfort Momoh, female genital mutilation violates the right to health and bodily integrity. If the state where to allow different rights due to cultural backgrounds how would they assess which cultural tradition is acceptable or not? Futhermore there is also a lack of personal autonomy as the young member may unwillingly receive the procedure. The act of giving different people different rights may result in unfavourable consequences. Individuals may feel alienated. This may also result in inequity. According to Marx alienation is the result of many factors one of which is whereby workers are alienated from their products however the intensity of alienation increases whereby the needs of society are paramount and must be met, this devaluates the individuals needs/ interest causing alienation. It is inequitable to assign people different rights based on cultural backgrounds, as individuals first and foremost are human and deserve equal rights. Equality whether its gender, race or religion is very current in discussions, society wants to achieve fairness for its members therefore the notion that the state should allow different rights to different people may prove to be problematic.
In conclusion, the concept of allowing different people different rights may be identified as inequitable by members of a society who are persistently raising awareness of equality for all, the state would need to overcome the major opposition. In order to obtain a cohesive society equity and equality need to be established. Furthermore, there are repercussions in allowing different people different rights over body medication depending on their cultural background for instance in regard to fgm such malicious practice may be justified as being part of cultural traditions the issue lies in what is seen as acceptable body modification and what is seen as unacceptable, also on whose standards is this defined by, the reason being is that ethnocentrism may prove to be an issue. In addition to what extent does society control the individual?
