From: CTheory Editors [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: 22 January 2003 18:30
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Event Scene 119 - Dead Bodies for the Masses
_____________________________________________________________________
CTHEORY THEORY, TECHNOLOGY AND CULTURE VOL 26, NOS 1-2
*** Visit CTHEORY Online: http://www.ctheory.net ***
Event Scene 119 03/01/22 Editors: Arthur and Marilouise Kroker
_____________________________________________________________________
Dead Bodies for the Masses:
The British Public Autopsy & The Aftermath
==========================================================
~Andy Miah~
During the last year, a considerable amount of discussion has arisen
from the work of Prof. Gunter von Hagens, famed for his exhibition
_Body Worlds_ [1], which has been publicised extensively and displays
'real' human bodies in an artistic, though anatomically graphic form.
The exhibit has been touring around the world for some time and is
currently showing at a back-street location in Brick Lane, London,
UK, where visitors are flocking in the thousands. The display is a
tribute to and celebration of von Hagens' method of preserving
organic life through the process of plastination, developed by him in
the 1980s. The process entails a form of preservation, whereby body
parts are dehydrated and filled with polymer resin, making them more
robust than does conventional formaldehyde. The bodies have a clear
appearance of being real, both in colour and texture.
Despite the vast popularity of the exhibition, the reasons for
attributing its success are open to interpretation. The imaginative
would have that von Hagens' work has artistic merit as an exhibition.
(It is, after all, presented in a gallery.) Sceptics and moralists
would claim that viewers are being brought to the gallery by the
immense publicity and that visitors attend the exhibit due mainly to
a fascination with the extraordinary, the grotesque, or simply the
spectacle.
However, the controversy arising from the exhibit pales in comparison
to von Hagens' most recent performance, a 'public autopsy'; the first
in Britain for nearly 200 years. The autopsy took place on the
evening of 20 November 2002, in front of a randomly selected (but
paying) audience. Later that same night, terrestrial Channel 4
broadcast an edited version of the event in the UK, after having made
headline evening news on both BBC1 and ITV [2].
All discussions concerning the autopsy have been controversial.
Commentators have been preoccupied with the ethical issues
surrounding the use of a human corpse in what appears to have been,
for many, simply a public spectacle. Yet, this ethical discussion has
been at the expense of more complex, cultural, artistic, moral
discourses, which have been conflated in the public analyses.
Certainly, one can acknowledge the relevance of a medical ethics
discourse surrounding this event, largely because it has been
categorised as a medical procedure (and because there are laws
governing the use of cadavers). From this perspective, there has been
a concern for human dignity, given that the conditions of the autopsy
-- an operating 'theatre' -- for some, seemed to trivialise the value
of the corpse being dissected (even though the anonymous individual's
family had given consent for his body to be used for educational
purposes).
Additionally, during Channel 4's broadcast of the autopsy and the
subsequent debates, opinions were sought mainly from medical experts.
From the perspective of Channel 4 producers, the 'scoop' was
evidently the controversial moral discussion raised by the public
nature of the autopsy. Partly, this was about the 'public'
component; partly, it was due to the performative nature of the
event. As well, there was a slight (but not insurmountable or
particularly interesting) legal issue, as von Hagens did not have a
UK license to perform the procedure. This small matter was
significantly underplayed throughout the broadcast and officials
decided to allow it to take place (although, the legal case against
von Hagens is ongoing). Regardless, the underlying moral issue about
the public autopsy was that these components of being 'public' and
'performative' diminished the value of the cadaver who was being
dissected before a television audience.
Despite these moral worries, one fundamental and straightforward
difficulty about the discussion surrounding the autopsy was that
probably the least useful opinions to have been sought were from the
medical community, if the hope was to capture the innovative and
profound aspects of this event. Indeed, it would seem that medical
experts are themselves part of the context of critique to which the
von Hagens discourse seemed to be directed. After all, supporters of
the autopsy and the exhibition believe that it has merit and value
because it forces on-lookers to confront their relationship with
medicine and to re-appraise the comfort and relative safety of a 21st
century life in Western societies.
Moreover, even if medical ethicists concluded that the performative
element of von Hagens' work were inappropriate, this was not only for
medical ethicists or bioethicists to discuss. The day after the
autopsy (21 November) in the _British Medical Journal_, Dr. Richard
Bryan gave a 'rapid response' indicating his disapproval of Channel
4's broadcast of the Autopsy [3]. Referring to Andreas Vesalius, the
16th Century anatomist, Bryan mistakenly assumes that there are
direct and clear comparisons to be made by virtue of von Hagens'
autopsy being public. Yet, one cannot make such straightforward
analogies, even if von Hagens referred to his ancestors as a
justification for wearing his trademark black hat throughout the
procedure (or, as von Hagens called it, his 'performance').
Whether or not von Hagens' performance was educational is not really
the critical issue or the most valued attribute of the autopsy. As
such, it ought not to have been the sole basis upon which it was
evaluated. On the criteria Bryan sets himself for his evaluation of
the Hagens autopsy, his claims are accurate. Moreover, they are in
accordance with the British Medical Association's Dr. Michael Wilks
and Emeritus Professor of Surgery Harold Ellis, who were both
providing a commentary for Channel 4 viewers during the broadcast.
Each of them was equally displeased with the performance and it is
precisely because these reactions were predictable that they were
both completely useless to help understand its significance. It was
valuable, I suggest, neither for its educative function nor for it
being entertaining -- the preferred moral dichotomy of Channel 4's
broadcast.
Appreciating the significance of the event requires a strong
sensitivity to the sociological understanding of medicine and a broad
philosophical appreciation for the critique that society has become
far too sanitised or clinical and that people no longer engage with
the messiness of being human. The autopsy had the potential to
re-describe being human in a manner that lends greater insight into
contemporary, western society and even the role of medicine, which is
often cloaked by institutional bureaucracy. Such an appreciation for
the autopsy can reveal more about the relationship between humans,
their bodies, and, ironically, the manner in which medical ethics
serves to distance patients from their conditions.
The transformation of the body, literally, inside-out by von Hagens
provided a means for re-engaging with our subdued curiosity about
identifying what is grotesque about being human or for relinquishing
the burden of 'skin' and 'proportion' as the basis for attributing
value to persons (as normalness). In this form, the dead body
represents the culmination of fascination for the Other. It is one
step further from initiatives such as the Visible Human Project [4],
which purports to have been primarily for ~medical practitioners~. It
does not seem coincidental that the VHP was also used as the basis
for a gallery exhibit [5]. However, in contrast, the public autopsy
purported to being for the ~people~, both a literal gallery and the
best of reality-TV.
A further basis for critique is the way in which Channel 4 broadcast
the autopsy, itself rich with revealing choices about the
preparedness of viewers to witness the grotesque and role of
media(tion) within the United Kingdom. At many times throughout the
broadcast, viewers could see very clearly that Channel 4 cameras were
shooting particularly graphic aspects of the cadaver, but were not
broadcasting them, thus heightening the viewers' curiosity and
anticipation.
Looking again at Bryan's 'medical' response, it fails to distinguish
between Channel 4's edited broadcast and the autopsy itself. Rather
typically, no criticism or in-depth inquiry concerns Channel 4's
edit, though the stronger reasons for condemning the autopsy would
seem most justifiable in relation to the broadcast rather than the
autopsy itself. Channel 4 programmed the viewing at 11:45pm (tens of
minutes after the autopsy actually finished), took substantial
shortcuts in the presentation of the event, giving the impression of
it being incredibly rushed, and omitted to view certain images,
perhaps to the pleasure of some people. There seemed much more of an
interest from Channel 4 to shoot the reactions on the faces of the
audience, rather than to engage the viewer with what was taking
place, thus strengthening the criticism that the autopsy was nothing
more than a spectacle.
Bryan also reacts to the comment made by Christine Odone, Deputy
Editor of _New Statesman_, the long-standing, high-brow UK political
magazine, that there was a 'whiff of death' in the process. Odone was
arguing that the procedure allowed the audience to come closer to
death and that this provided a rich and important experience.
However, Bryan's response was that one would only have smelled
formalin from such a corpse, thus ridiculising Odone's reaction.
Bryan's response simplifies the autopsy considerably. Interpreting
Odone's comment in a manner of being ridiculous sensationalism
misconstrues the context of such a comment.
Another occurrence during the autopsy, which strengthens this idea,
was the moment when von Hagens lifted the internal organs out of the
cadaver and placed them next to the body, at which point the audience
erupted into a spontaneous, if somewhat reticent applause. This
difficult moment seemed to reinforce the performative nature of this
event, but speaks more to the awkwardness of the audience than to the
sensationalistic manner in which it was being carried out. What else
can one do in an audience when witnessing something extraordinary and
unknown? Applause is the only resource an audience has to demonstrate
its reaction.
One might question what has been gained from this performance. From
the medical perspective, perhaps the most useful lesson of the
autopsy is that, for far too long, medicine has been outside of the
public domain and that this has stifled the understanding and
acceptance of new medical procedures. For this reason alone, there is
merit in the positive discourse surrounding von Hagens' works, even
if his delivery remained weak. Of utmost importance is for medical
practitioners to recognise the public autopsy was an opportunity for
re-addressing the relationship between the medical community and its
prospective patients.
Yet, this alone does not reveal why the public autopsy gained such
notoriety and attention. There is an underlying premise to a public
autopsy in the UK that is highly appealing and intellectually rich,
even if the process through which it has been delivered in the
exhibit and by the autopsy were ineffective. An exploration of death
through art deserves greater attention, particularly when it offers a
rare and needed philosophical insight into contemporary medicine.
Yet, von Hagens is not the first 'artist' to raise questions about
the meaning of death through artistic endeavours.
One of the disappointments of the _Body Worlds_ exhibit and the
public autopsy is that they not seem indicative of anything
particularly complex about death, the body, or anything quite so
complex. Von Hagens' autopsy did appear to be performative and
self-congratulatory and there did not seem willingness from the
artist to explore the more conceptual elements of a public autopsy
(perhaps for fear of even greater attack from the medical community).
Von Hagens' exhibits and his autopsy were comparable to a 19th
century freak show. People are paying, not to engage with broad
philosophical concepts about being human; nor do they depart from a
premise that modern humans no longer engage with the grotesqueness of
life. This is unfortunate mostly because it could have been
otherwise. The reason for why these events have attracted such
attention is precisely because people feel that there is such a need.
There is a philosophically credible rationale for von Hagens' work
and one can make a reasonable case for wanting to drag medicine out
into the public domain.
The equivocation about whether von Hagens' public autopsy was a
performance or a procedure; why people applauded at seeing the
cadaver's internal organs lifted out of the body; why the event was
allowed to take place despite von Hagens not having a licence; why
the _Body Worlds_ exhibition has generated so much interest, and why
this at all has attracted Channel 4 to broadcast it and other major
television channels to place it in their headlines, is precisely
because there is a general, social equivocation about medicine. Each
of these elements has been interesting largely for the non-medical
practitioner -- the potential and actual patients or, perhaps,
consumers of medicine.
One of the main questions to conclude the autopsy was whether it
should happen again. Such an approach to this topic misunderstands
the intention, which is to problematise the autonomy of ethics as a
leading discourse in what is medically sound. Degradation and
humiliation were (and are) the concerns of the medical ethicist -- a
concern for the evasive, but intuitive concept 'human dignity', the
bedrock of medical ethics. The art of medical ethics has been the
preservation of the abstract (of this particular abstract), of
keeping medicine enclosed. Both the autopsy and the exhibit are
pursued by von Hagens in the name of 'art' and 'education'; yet they
fail to deliver either. Instead, they borrow from the appealing
notion of having revealed something -- von Hagens' autopsy was
comparable to the magician pulling a rabbit out of a hat -- claiming
to force a confrontation with the profound; with life and death. In
this sense, it strikes a chord with contemporary critiques of the
public-private distinction [6] and the function of curiosity in moral
reasoning [7].
Yet, von Hagens' exhibits are broken-bodies, trivial-bodies -- they
are placed into the positions of pole-vaulters and basketball
players. There is even a winged man, whose latissimus dorsi muscles
are spread out behind him. He is neither ordinarily human nor
monstrously grotesque; but is comical. It neither demystifies
humanness, nor inspires feelings of horror. It is not banal; but
neither is it at all profound. The exhibition and the autopsy were a
tragedy, an allusion to what could have been. But, it made good
television.
Notes:
------
[1] Body Worlds Website: <http://www.bodyworlds.com>
[2] Information and comments from the public about the Autopsy can be
found at the Channel 4 website, particularly Channel 4's 'Think TV'
section at,
<http://www.channel4.com/culture/microsites/T/thinktv/comments/
nov_autopsy_comments_2.html>
[3] Bryan, R.T. "Rapid Response: The Autopsy, Channel 4, 20th
November 2002," _British Medical Journal_ (2002, Nov 21)
<http://bmj.com/cgi/eletters/324/7339/27205>
[4] Kember, S. "NITs and NRTs: Medical Science and the Frankenstein
Factor." _Desire by Design: Body, Territories, and New Technologies_.
Cutting Edge: The Women's Research Group. London, I.B. Tauris, 1999,
29-49; Thacker, E. ".../visible_human.html/digital anatomy and the
hyper-texted body" _CTHEORY_, (1998, June 2)
<http://www.ctheory.net/text_file.asp?pick=103>; Waldby, C.
"Revenants: The Visible Human Project and the Digital Uncanny." _Body
and Society_ 3(1), 1997, 1-16; Waldby, C. _The Visible Human Project:
Informatic Bodies and Posthuman Medicine_, London & New York,
Routledge, 2000.
[5] Cartwright, L. "The Visible Man: The Male Criminal Subject as
Biomedical Norm." In J. Terry and M. Calvert (eds), _Processed Lives:
Gender and Technology in Everyday Life_. London and New York,
Routledge, 1997, 123-137.
[6] Nagel, T. "Concealment and Exposure." _Philosophy and Public
Affairs_ 27(1), 1998, 3-30. Also available from:
<http://www.nyu.edu/gsas/dept/philo/faculty/nagel/papers/exposure.
html>
[7] Golding, S. "Curiosity." In A. Norval and D. Howarth (eds),
_Re-Considering the Political_. Oxford, Anthony Rowe, 1995, 97-112.
--------------------
Andy Miah is Lecturer in Media, Bioethics, and Cyberculture at
University of Paisley, Scotland and Tutor in Ethics of Science &
Medicine in the Graduate School of Biomedical & Life Sciences,
University of Glasgow, Scotland. He is co-editor of a special book
edition of the journal _Research in Philosophy and Technology_
(Elsevier Science, 2002) and author of the forthcoming Routledge
publication _Genetically Modified Athletes: Biomedical Ethics, Genes
& Sport_ (expected 2003). In relation to this monograph, he was an
International Visiting Scholar (2002) of The Hastings Center, New
York. <http://www.andymiah.net>
_____________________________________________________________________
* CTHEORY is an international journal of theory, technology and
* culture. Articles, interviews, and key book reviews in
* contemporary discourse are published weekly as well as
* theorisations of major "event-scenes" in the mediascape.
*
* Editors: Arthur and Marilouise Kroker
*
* Editorial Board: Jean Baudrillard (Paris), Paul Virilio (Paris),
* Bruce Sterling (Austin), R.U. Sirius (San Francisco), Siegfried
* Zielinski (Koeln), Stelarc (Melbourne), Richard Kadrey (San
* Francisco), DJ Spooky [Paul D. Miller] (NYC), Timothy Murray
* (Ithaca/Cornell), Lynn Hershman Leeson (San Francisco), Stephen
* Pfohl (Boston), Andrew Ross (NYC), David Cook (Toronto), Ralph
* Melcher (Sante Fe), Shannon Bell (Toronto), Gad Horowitz
* (Toronto), Deena Weinstein (Chicago), Michael Weinstein
* (Chicago), Andrew Wernick (Peterborough).
*
* In Memory: Kathy Acker
*
* Editorial Correspondents: Ken Hollings (UK),
* Maurice Charland (Canada) Steve Gibson (Canada/Sweden).
*
* Editorial Associate: Ted Hiebert
* WWW Design & Technical Advisor: Spencer Saunders (CTHEORY.NET)
* WWW Engineer Emeritus: Carl Steadman
_____________________________________________________________________
To view CTHEORY online please visit:
http://www.ctheory.net/
To view CTHEORY MULTIMEDIA online please visit:
http://ctheorymultimedia.cornell.edu/
_____________________________________________________________________
* CTHEORY includes:
*
* 1. Electronic reviews of key books in contemporary theory.
*
* 2. Electronic articles on theory, technology and culture.
*
* 3. Event-scenes in politics, culture and the mediascape.
*
* 4. Interviews with significant theorists, artists, and writers.
*
* 5. Multimedia theme issues and projects.
*
*
* Special thanks to Concordia University.
*
* No commercial use of CTHEORY articles without permission.
*
* Mailing address: CTHEORY, Concordia University, 1455 de
* Maisonneuve, O., Montreal, Canada, H3G 1M8.
*
* Full text and microform versions are available from UMI, Ann Arbor,
* Michigan; and Canadian Periodical Index/Gale Canada, Toronto.
*
* Indexed in: International Political Science Abstracts/
* Documentation politique international; Sociological Abstract
* Inc.; Advance Bibliography of Contents: Political Science and
* Government; Canadian Periodical Index; Film and Literature Index.
_____________________________________________________________________
************************************************************************************
Distributed through Cyber-Society-Live [CSL]: CSL is a moderated discussion
list made up of people who are interested in the interdisciplinary academic
study of Cyber Society in all its manifestations.To join the list please visit:
http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/cyber-society-live.html
*************************************************************************************
|
