Grosz etc

First of all i must say that the various references to what we term the "body" are still swimming in my head. Is it the physical body, the literal body, the tangible body, the intangible body? Maybe there's a way of reconciling these definitions, like they'd meet somewhere in the middle and make friends! (is personification giving a more tangible [physical human] body to what is already a body of text?)

Reading Grosz, i'd initially thought her references to the body were very literal and physical ones, especially in her discussion of feminism, and the differences in the male and female bodies. But one point i was rather intrigued by, that not "only anatomical, physiological, or biological accounts of bodies are possible, [but also] the possibility of sociocultural conceptions of the body and...the transformations and upheavals that may transform biological accounts." (p31) So there is also, beyond the physical body, the presence that the body exerts on people and on society. And this presence is often an object of power i think!

It is not just the presence of a socially high-status figure that'd make us self-conscious i think. One would also strongly feel the presence of those who have "become sites of struggle and resistance" (p36). Like in the presence of a poorer relative or a starving family, one would feel the discomfort of being better off, and be obliged to do something to help. Physical conditions can make up different types of 'presences', and exert pressure on society in different ways then.

And thinking about physical presence in relation to everyday life, i remembered the disembodied presence that was mentioned in class. The fact that there are people around us (or simply us ourselves) who are not as comfortable with their physical selves as they are with their mental selves. Like we could all be very comfortable blogging and displaying our thoughts and personalities through words in a virtual platform, but come to class, and more of us are silent than not. Traditionally, i've been accustomed to thinking that the mental/emotional are 'better' or 'more important' than the physical, but i realised also that we're much more physical beings than we may like to admit. Maybe because of carnality.

For example, if your best friend migrates and goes away, what really upsets you would be the fact that you'd miss her physical presence. Like you know you can keep in touch in so many ways, you know you can still relate and talk to her as you've always done, you know time and distance won't change a friendship. But not being able to have pyjamas parties, not being able to have meals, not seeing her where you usually do somehow grips you more than what the mind tells you it will still be able to do with your friend's mind. Are we so hung-up over physical presences because it is often the most real to many of us?