Shona's Response to Arola & Wysocki Intro

[Anonymous]

#380

In their Introduction Chapter, Arola and Wysocki offer an interesting orientation to the embodiment as it relates not just with composition but with being in the world. I found a distinct tension driven by two contrasting conceptions of being (human):
a) we are our bodies (rather than we have bodies), and therefore the significance of the body as a sense mechanism, in all its biological, physiological, material functions should not be discounted.
While also, b) we are always already being mediated, and we do not necessarily “come to be with finished bodies and then start sensing, or that some unmediated way of being exists prior to or grounding our sensuous experiences” (3), suggesting that our embodied selves are almost always mediated in some fashion, as modern humans.

Further background on the term mediation or mediate would be helpful. In a sense, humans and other beings are always already mediated by forces of action and change in the external environment – if the natural environment can be included in the term mediation. If not, the argument that there is never a stable or founding sensation of bodily intelligence, as an organism, without the influence of media (in the technological sense), is difficult to comprehend for me.
I particularly like the quote of philosopher Richard Shusterman on the concept of the body, once seen as a solely medium of sorts has been elevated to the level of “constructor and locus of the real” (4). Interacting at this level with media (technology), the body as the central conductor of reality is more apparent and therefore cannot be jettisoned as a mere vessel of human existence. 
This brings to mind one fundamental component of analysis on embodiment which I hope will be uncovered more this semester: How can we understand embodiment unless bodily self-awareness is central to the examination? If we are examining how certain media or technology or literacy molds our embodiment in the world do we first need to have a base level of self-awareness on how we are in our bodies? Rather than viewing the physical body as a separate entity interacting with its environment on a distinct plain of communication, a perspective of the body as source of intelligence and knowledge tied directly to the self seems apparent.
This was addressed to a degree in the author’s citing of Hansen’s work on a necessary shift form “observational to operational engagement within our worlds” (7). The awareness not only of what we see, through whatever level of mediation, but how we interact sways the perspective of embodiment from externally enforced to an intra-action between body as sense being and the outside environment. As this relates with teaching and learning, I thought the author’s proposal to encourage a “democracy of the senses rather than a “hegemony of sight” offers a fruitful direction (7).
The other main point that I found very interesting was the relationship between embodiment and identity. The authors distinguish between aspects of identity which are adopted and performed and therefore do influence one’s sense of their body, yet stress these are not “comprehensive of embodiment” (13) The conflict between the body’s role as both mediated and mediating underpins their examination of embodiment and mediation.
I would enjoy discussing again the terms mediation and embodiment to better understand their usage and meaning by both these authors and fellow classmates.

[Anonymous]

#384

Shona — You ask   “If we are examining how certain media or technology or literacy molds our embodiment in the world do we first need to have a base level of self-awareness on how we are in our bodies?”  What a great question!  So, how do we find that base level of self-awareness?  How do we teach it?  I also liked the way you picked up on the phrase “democracy of the senses.”  That feels powerful to me too.  –Sean

[Author]

Posts