April 01, 2005
Does the Bible Make Me Look Fat in this Dress?
by Lorraine Berry

Terri Schiavo's death has affected me, not because I knew the woman, but because I know about the thing that drove her to her collapse in the first place. Eating disorders. Hatred of the body. The desire to hurt the thing that will not be controlled-the body, the female body.
So much of what I write about comes back to the body. It is the topic I cannot stay away from. It is the source of my politics. It is the source of my art. It cannot be separated from my brain. I am not a Cartesian. It's not just that I think; it's that I feel, and I touch, taste, smell. It's that I have orgasms, that I know the touch of flesh on flesh. It is that I have felt a baby pass through my birth canal, have felt the stirring of life within me. It is that I have been penetrated by another human being. It is that I have experienced pain. It is that I have looked at my body and seen a reflection of imperfection that I wanted to fix, and in seeing that, I have starved it, purged it, wished it different. And so, having been so much an inhabitant of my body, that I declare that bodies are the site of resistance. It is that I think the government has no right to tell me which of my senses I should privilege, and which of my senses I should discipline.
But because I am also a thinker, I think often of the sources of body hatred in this culture. They are myriad. We all know them. Today, I focus on one. This is inspired by a number of things, too many to go into here. But I picked up the Bible again recently, and concomitantly, I re-read Elaine Scarry's The Body in Pain. It has made me want to write the following.
Let's start with Genesis. With the creation of man and woman. Did you know there are two creation tales? The one that we usually remember is the one that says that woman was made from the rib of Adam, that he came first. But that's not the first one.
Chapter 1, Verse 27. ”So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.”
In this version of the story, God is both male and female. Both male and female are expressions of God's essence. And yet, that's not the story we are told in Sunday school. Frequently, if we are told of Eve at all, we are told of her being the source of original sin. And what was original sin, exactly?
But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die. And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die: For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.
Eve didn't give humanity sin. She gave humanity knowledge And God's punishment for that had been like something handed out by an angry father. “How dare you speak back to me. How dare you question my authority. I will make you sorry that you were ever born.”
Not only that, Eve becomes aware that she has a body, and in that awareness, a whole other world of sensory experience is opened up to her. Think about it: What does the term “to know someone biblically” mean?
As Scarry writes:
Part of the knowledge that comes with eating of the tree of good and evil is that they stand, without protest, as creatures with bodies in the presence of one who has no body. It is crucial that these two be said together: the problematic knowledge is not that man has a body; the problematic knowledge is not that God has no body; the problematic knowledge is that man has a body and God has no body-that is, that the unfathomable difference in power between them in part depends on this difference in embodiness … their awareness of the body will soon be correspondingly be heightened: the body is made a permanently preoccupying category in the pain of childbirth, the pain of work required to bring forth food…
And so, God places a curse on Eve and Adam's bodies. He makes it that they will die. He curses women to bring forth children in pain. He makes their bodies the source of suffering. He makes the fact that God has an urepresentable body and humans have a body the source of suffering, of separation, of pain.
And I think that we've been laboring under that ever since. Do I believe the Genesis story? No. Not personally. But it doesn't matter. Because so many people do, and for them, the body is the thing that got us into trouble with God. And other people's bodies are still getting us into trouble with God. Unruly women, gays and lesbians, teenagers having sex, people insisting that they have the right to determine how and when they die. It's all, according to some, designed to piss God off. And we know what happens when God gets pissed off. Look through the Old Testament. There's plenty there. You want something that will really set you back on your heels? Look at the Book of Lamentations.
Elaine Scarry has an entire section of her book devoted to God's lack of body. Yes, of course, in the New Testament, God does have a body in the form of Jesus Christ. And there's a hell of a lot of suffering that gets inflicted on that body. But in the Old Testament, God does not have a body. And what's more, the Fourth Commandment specifically commands that humans not dare to imagine what that body might look like-at least not by making graven images of it.
What does it mean that God does not have a body? To quote Scarry:
But to have no body is to have no limits on one's extension out into the world; conversely, to have a body, a body made emphatic by being continually altered through various forms of creation, instruction (e.g., bodily cleansing), and wounding, is to have one's sphere of extension contracted down to the small circle of one's immediate physical presence. Consequently, to be intensely embodied is the equivalent of being unrepresented and (here as in many secular contexts) is almost always the condition of those without power.
In other words, to be represented by a body is to be finite, to be less powerful, to be controllable. It is not the suffering of Christ that is offered by the right wing as the source of their politics. If it were, their politics would be more compassionate, would recognize the body as the source of pleasure but also of pain. Instead, they make references to the Old Testament, to Sodom and Gomorrah, to Leviticus, to all the parts of the Bible where God seems to punish humans for simply being human.
So, I've been thinking about all of this as the drama of Terri Schiavo has played out. I've been thinking of a young woman who believed her body was the enemy. Who set out to control it in the only way she knew how. By purging it, and in purging it, destroyed it.
And today, it is that Terri that I weep for. And it's why I want my party, the Democratic party, to embrace the body as a site of politics. To fight for the rights of bodies to love, and experience pleasure, and to have their suffering eased. The body is not the enemy.
Posted by in Bio-Power, Body, Health, Religion
Permalink |
Comments (8)
| TrackBack (3) | Technorati Cosmos
Trackbacks
Trackback for this post:http://www.culturekitchen.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.cgi/2858
The following blogs make reference to this post :
» Good question from Majikthise
Does the Bible Make Me Look Fat in this Dress? [Via Lauren.] [More...]
Found inApril 3, 2005 10:15 PM
» Sex, Bibles & Tinky Winky from Last Day of My Life
Lorraine Berry has an post about what I have been thinking about the Religious Right's views of the human body. [More...]
Found inApril 3, 2005 11:48 PM
» The Body Is Not the Enemy from SIVACRACY.NET: Siva Vaidhyanathan's Weblog
Interesting post at Culturekitchen, excerpt below but you ough to read the whole thing: "Terri Schiavo's death has affected me, not because I knew the woman, but because I know about the thing that drove her to her collapse in... [More...]
Found inApril 4, 2005 10:51 AM
Say it loud, say it proud!
Thank you for your presentation of this topic here. As a subscriber of the journal Body and Society, i have read for many years articles that offer similar substantive ideas, but not nearly as clearly as yours.
We learn from the earliest moments of our lives that these vessels, in which we discover a self observing its own beingness, are flawed. They damage easily, they create sensory experiences that are terrible and pleasureful, they leak, and they never look like anyone elses. It is extraordinary that humans have sustained themselves for so long having to constantly acknowledge this impermanence and impracticality.
The work of transhuman researchers, to move beyond the body, seems to be enlightened and motivated by the very substantive thoughts you provide. To move beyond the body is part and parcel of the quest you examine, begun in our mythologies.
2
Comment by: Arun at April 3, 2005 10:58 PM
I come from a very different tradition (Hinduism), where even the most abstract idea has a concrete representation, and everything, including you and me and not just Jesus, are manifestations of the same underlying divinity. God - Gods - are represented everywhere. Nevertheless, in that tradition too, the body is a source of suffering - specifically, the wrong identification of oneself with one's body is a source of suffering.
So, it is possible that the body, even though not conceived of as being sinful as in your representation of the Judeo-Christian tradition, is nevertheless the source of suffering.
3
Comment by: Michael Hussey at April 3, 2005 11:30 PM
The right has a serious problem with the body when it comes to sexuality. Birth control, Janet Jackson's breast, abstinence education (remember Bill Frist being asked if he believes tears can transmit AIDS) and the list goes on.
Why would people who oppose abortion be against birth control. The only reason is they want to control what goes on in the bedroom of others. Think about the sodomy law Bush supported when he was Governor of Texas. Who is the victim of a crime. The guy that doesn't have an orgasm?!?
Bush supports the Texas sodomy statute (which does not apply to heterosexuals): According to the June 1999 issue of The Advocate, Bush said he would veto any attempt by the Texas legislature to repeal an antiquated state law that criminalizes private homosexual activity, calling it "a symbolic gesture of traditional values." [Note: This law was declared unconstitutional]
4
Comment by: Paul at April 4, 2005 01:37 PM
Arun Said -*So, it is possible that the body, ... is nevertheless the source of suffering.*
Arun speaks of Hindu culture first as if there were only one culture and two as if the conclusion that the body, or physical existence was the source of suffering.
Hindi and Buddist ascetics prove daily his point and the one I am going to make.
Physical existence is simply the source of sensation not suffering, it is the source of pleasure and pain and the two sensations differ only in interpretation. There are a number of people in western society that have even turned this into a sexual fetish.
The source of suffering is desire, desire for more, desire for less, desire to have, or desire to have pleasure or desire to be free from pain.
Suffering comes from the inability to fulfil desire.
Seperation of desire from sensation places physical feelings in a place away from the spiritual.
Once the physical and spiritual have been isolated they then can be reintegrated with understanding.
The body is not the source of suffering, we are.
5
Comment by: streak at April 4, 2005 02:32 PM
Very interesting post. Found you from Feministe. I saw Sherman Alexie last week and he quoted C.S. Lewis on the issue of the fleshly sins--something god being far more concerned with the sins of the spirit.
6
Comment by: minuscle at April 4, 2005 02:46 PM
A lot of damage has been done with the bible in regards to the body. Most of it however due to early christian teaching - wanting to contrast Christianity from Gnosticism but being heavily influenced by it at the same time. (Augustine)
So, I am not sure if the old testament per se is to be blamed or subsequent dualistic interpretations. It is certainly open to this interpretation.
Judaism has a slightly different take on things I think (but don't know enough about this. )
Two other small things, In my opinion classing women as lower and excluding them from ritual and priesthood does not lead automatically to rejection of their bodies. It is about their roles in life.
and the other thing which you are indicating, but I think, cannot be repeated often enough - the second creation story (Gen1.1b - 24) is the older one, by approx. at least 300 years. (first one (Gen 1.1ff) was written in Babylon and uses Elohim as name for the creator consistently, while the second does not use Elohim at all) Thank you for bringing this up.
just to make clear. My position would not be in agreement of either ritualistic or bodily rejection of woman at all. For me the creation stories tell the story of a purposeful creation. but also that they reflect an understanding of natural science and theological thinking at the time of writing. That does not mean that they have not been superseded by subsequent interpretations especially through Jesus who very much accepted woman as they are. irrespective of social stand, body shape or what ever and breaking ground then and giving us food for thought now.
7
Comment by: minuscle at April 4, 2005 06:29 PM
sometimes one has to go back on oneself - sorry - the second creation story starts of course in Gen2.3b and it does use Elohim but not ihwh which is the significant difference - Bible school is so long ago
8
Comment by: Herbert Browne at April 7, 2005 03:48 AM
Re: genesis A & B
I appreciate this hystery
(& a pissed-off god's no mystery).
^..^


1
Comment by: spyder at April 1, 2005 06:56 PM