The “Other” is marginalized, abject, not “normal.” It’s hard to define, but

we know it when we see it:

• “Abject beings have bodies and desires that cannot be incorporated into social norms, Butler argues, and so they inhabit the border between the acceptable and unacceptable, marking it out for the benefit of mainstream society. In short, people with disabilities are not yet ‘subjects’ in Foucault’s disciplinary sense: their bodies appear as a speck of reality uncontrolled by the ideological forces of society.”

“Disability in Theory: From Social Constructionism to the New Realism of the Body” by Tobin Siebers

(other/abject vs. subject vs. object)

The abject body can be both repulsive and attractive.

The abject body can be both repulsive and attractive.

- giant boobs- children

- the disabled

How can the abject body be a source of pleasure?

Why does it tickle the literary imagination?

To understand “Other” is to understand “Normal.”

So what is “Normal”? (specifically)

What does a “Normal” body look like? (what variables do we need

to establish to answer this question?)

Dove says “normal” looks like:

How is “Normal” determined (why did Dove represent as

they did)?• Statistically?• Ideologically?• Historically?

• Medically• Culturally?• Popularly?

• Religiously?• Fantastically?

Side Discussion: Who cares about the body? What discourses inform this

discussion?

How do individuals (subject, abject, and object alike) come to understand

“Normal” and “Abnormal”?

(the prefix ab- / abs- means from, away, separation)

In Western culture, what can the body represent?

In Western culture, what can the body represent?

Ability/disabilityHealthRacePoliticsNormal/AbnormalSexualityBeautySex

ClassRaceEthnicityExperiencesReligion GenderAffiliation

What does it mean when we say the personal is political?

-We are more than an individual

-We are more than an individual

-Individual self-actualization has contextual limits

-We are more than an individual

-Individual self-actualization has contextual limits

-We are always reflective of the context

-We are more than an individual

-Individual self-actualization has limits

-We are always reflective of the material reality

-The ideological vs. the individual