How does the infliction of pain through violence turn the body into a political sign?

The relationship between the nation state and the bodies of its people is one of complexity and ambiguity (Fassin 2011: 294). Within nation-states, the role of violence as a tool for political purposes has been widely discussed (Foucault 1977; Nagengast 1994). In a similar vein, this essay seeks to discuss the way in which the infliction of pain through violence turns the body into a political sign that can be used for political purposes, by both nation states as recognized social, physical and political entities and by those who seek to disrupt or reorder nation states. In order to accomplish this task, this essay considers violence to be a multifaceted concept with both visible and invisible consequences, something that can be socially constructed, but also physically and mentally felt, and as something which has the intention of causing some form of pain, either directly or indirectly (Scarry 1985; Nagengast 1994). By first exploring the notion of abjection and Scarrys (1985) ideas regarding the conscience and language destroying capabilities of violence and pain, the transformation of the body into a political sign can be discussed. This essay utilizes examples from torture and war specifically, in order to explain and discuss that transformation.

The concept of the abject is important is describing the unbridgeable mental and physical boundary present between the personal experience of violence and the

witnessing of violence. Whilst the abject, much like violence, has remained notoriously hard to define, broken down to its simplest form, the abject has only one quality of the object that of being opposed to it (Kristeva 1982: 1). In discussing the issue of rape in the context of war, Diken and Laustsen (2005: 113), go further to suggest the abject is not just something that threatens normality by being opposed to it, nor is it a pole in a binary distinction but indistinction itself. As an example, Diken and Laustsen (2005: 113) recognize the child of forced rape in the Bosnian civil war as an abject, something, which is never of the woman herself, and something that cannot be detached from her in a social sense. The abject in these examples is thus something that is recognized as not being of any object, whether external or internal, and thus it is always opposed. Considering this concept, this essay can turn now to the notion of pain and violence as abjection in order to examine political role of violence on the body.

Understanding pain as abjection allows for a recognition of the defying nature of expressing pain and the recognition of the gap between the personal experience of violence and the witnessing of violence. Scarry (1985) in her seminal piece on the body in pain recognizes the inexpressibility of pain. She suggests that the nature of pain is such that it defies verbal expression due to it being not of or for anything(Scarry 1985: 5). This implies that it is not in the realm of other verbally expressible objects, such as love or fear, but due to its nature is in the rather uncertain space of the unsharable. Whilst not using the term abject, pain is defined as an abjection, something that is not of any object yet which is felt and can often be seen. Scarry (1985: 5) goes further to suggest that the nature of pain

makes it, more than any other phenomenon [resistant to] objectification in language. Together these examples make for a compelling structure within which to first examine the gap between the witnessing and the experience of pain.

Due to pains inherent nature as something inexpressible, language is devoid of usefulness, and in a space where language is not used, the body becomes something on which meaning and understanding are evaluated. Appadurai (1998: 912) citing many others suggest that anthropology has long recognized the ways with which the body is used as a means of creating and representing cultural meaning. With specific regards to violence however, it is pain that stems from violence that becomes inscribed. Not only that but, what is at once a body in pain becomes, not only a symbol of pain itself, but a space for the representation and inscription of meaning, and thus a space of symbolic potential beyond the scope of the individual body. With the breakdown of the ability to verbally communicate what is being felt, the gap between the experience and the witnessing of violence becomes unbridgeable and the representation upon the injured body is open for political representation and misrepresentation.

The case of torture, in this regard, is particularly useful in explaining the way in which the body can be turned into a political sign. Scarry (1985: 20) asserts that torture, whilst not only physically painful is at its most intense, completely language deconstructing. Scarry (1985: 20) makes a careful distinction here between the use of destroy and deconstruct, preferring the latter in an effort to convey the sense that it is not a momentary destruction, but a complete

breakdown and exposure of the tortureds voice, as opposed to language, during torture that serves to both elicit pain and deny its presence. This simultaneous construction of pain and deconstruction of voice through torture, serves the purpose of providing a body on which to inscribe representations. As Foucault (1977: 44) suggests, torture serves the purpose of inscribing the truth upon the tortureds body, and in this instance the truth of which is constructed and created by the torturer. The denial, as Scarry (1985: 56) explains occurs in the translation of all the objectified elements of pain into the insignia of the regime. Here then is the central point of torture, that of the breakdown of verbal language and conscience such that a sign can be inscribed upon the body, thus making the body itself a symbol of the political environment.

On a broader scale, and often featuring torture, war is another site and cause of the transformation of the body into a political sign through pain and violence. The relationship between the body and the nation state is perhaps most important in this discussion of war, as it is often with the bodies of soldiers with which the war is fought and won or lost. The nature of bodily sacrifice in war is perhaps the most obvious display of the ability of pain and violence to turn the body into a political sign. As Scarry (1985: 112) notes, the body may be permanently or partially loaned in the act of war, thus forever being a symbol of the politics of war. Further to this, Green (1994) and Diken and Laustsen (2005), in their discussion of Guatemalan and Bosnian ethnic conflicts respectively, describe the way that the bodies of the dead and injured serve as physical representations of both the political regimes and the nature of the violence. The bodies have lost their ability to verbally express their pain, or in some

circumstances the bodies are so visibly injured that the political signs are too visible to look past. Diken and Laustsen (2005) also suggest that not only do the bodies of those injured become political signs, but they also serve to further inflict trauma on the family and community. The victims of war rape in this case are forever burdened with the physical and mental pain of the act committed, and with the social representation on their bodies as a victim of rape.

Thus, the transformation of the body into a political sign due to the infliction of pain through violence must be understood through a number of different concepts. At first the horror and abject nature of pain itself creates a situation whereby the pained is unable to verbalize the experience of their pain. This in turn creates an unbridgeable space between the experience in the body of the witness to such pain and the body experiencing the pain. This social void created by the difficulty in expressing pain thus serves to create a space whereby the body is open to visual representations. As has been noted by Scarry(1985: 14), The failure to express pain will always work to allow its appropriation and conflation with debased forms of power.

References Appadurai, Arjun (1998). 'Dead Certainty: Ethnic Violence in the Era of Globalization.' Development and Change, 29: 905-925. Diken, B., and Laustsen, C. (2005) Becoming Abject: Rape as a Weapon of War. Body & Society 11(1):111-128.

Fassin, D. (2011) The Trace: Violence, Truth, and the Politics of the Body. Social Research, 78(2). Foucault, Michael (1977) Discipline & Punishment , NY: Pantheon Books, pp. 3269. Green, L. (1994) Fear as a Way of Life. Cultural Anthropology, 9 (2): 227-256. Kristeva, J.(1982) Approaching Abjection Powers of Horror: An Essay on Abjection, New York: Columbia University Press, , pp.1-31 Nagengast, C. (1994). 'Violence, Terror and the Crisis of the State.' Annual Review of Anthropology 23: 109-36. Scarry, E. (1985), The Body in Pain: The Making and Unmaking of the World, Oxford University Press, New York.