Jenny Slatman

In this paper, I explore the meaning of bodily integrity in disfiguring breast cancer. Bodily integrity is a normative principle precisely because it does not simply refer to actual physical or functional intactness. It rather indicates what should be regarded and respected as inviolable in vulnerable and damageable bodies. I will argue that this normative inviolability or wholeness can be based upon a person's embodied experience of wholeness. This phenomenological stance differs from the liberal view that identifies respect for integrity with respect for autonomy (resulting in an invalidation of bodily integrity's proper normative meaning), as well as from the view that bodily integrity is based upon ideologies of wholeness (which runs the risk of being disadvantageous to women). I propose that bodily integrity involves a process of identification between the experience of one's body as “Leib” and the experience of one's body as “Körper.” If identification fails or is not possible, one's integrity is threatened. This idea of bodily integrity can support breast cancer patients and survivors in making decisions about possible corrective interventions. To implement this idea in oncology care, empirical-phenomenological research needs to establish how breast cancer patients express their embodied self-experiences

Although scars never disappear completely, in time most people will basically get used to them. In this paper I explore what it means to habituate to scars against the background of the phenomenological concept of incorporation. In phenomenology the body as Leib or corps vécu functions as a transcendental condition for world disclosure. Because of this transcendental reasoning, phenomenology prioritizes a form of embodied subjectivity that is virtually dis-embodied. Endowing meaning to one’s world through getting engaged in actions and projects is most successful indeed when one’s body is “absent,” “transparent,” or, at least, if it is not in the center of one’s attention. This taken-for-granted nature can be disturbed by discomfort, disability, and disfigurement. Incorporation, so I explain, aims at maintaining or restoring the body’s taken-for-grantedness. My analysis of the case of a woman who successfully habituated to her mastectomy scar demonstrates, however, that habituation to a perceptible scar can only be understood partly in terms of incorporation. Next to a decrease of explicit attention for the scar and the discomfort it produces, the scar should also stop being a sign that refers to something else than itself. This is only possible, I argue, by taking the body’s materiality seriously, rather than it being wiped out as a result of transcendental reasoning.

While having a breast reconstruction, women have certain expectations about their future breasted bodies. The aim of this paper is to describe and analyze these expectations in the process of reconstruction. By applying a qualitative, phenomenological study within a longitudinal research design, this paper acknowledges the temporarily complex, contextualized, embodied, and subjective nature of the phenomenon of expectations. The analysis identified expectations regarding three different aspects of women’s embodiment: their gazed body, their capable/practical body, and their felt body. After reconstruction, these women try to reconfigure—adjust, level or retrospectively rewrite—their expectations. Further, some women face what apparently arrives totally unexpected, namely a strange feeling breast or a failed reconstruction. The development of these women’s expectations can be understood as an active, continuously evolving, difficult and sometimes impossible dynamic of expecting the surprise that is a breast reconstruction. Within this dynamic, women formulate and reconfigure—by definition—unrealistic expectations and validate and try to achieve unexpected futures. We suggest that medical professionals can facilitate this dynamic in various ways

The aim of this article is to demonstrate that a certain connection between 'seeing'and 'Being' can be traced within the later work of Merleau-Ponty. It is argued that a theory of seeing which is developed from a radical phenomenological point of view is nota confirmation, but rather a critique of Western representational ontology. The centralprinciple of this critique is formed by the notion of reversibility. By means of the reversible relation between the seer and the seen, and between the visible and the invisible — which is situated within seeing itself —, the traditional opposition between subject and object is abolished and 'Being' loses its alleged meaning of 'presence' and 'unity'. One could say that the meaning of 'seeing' evades the (traditional) philosophicaldiscourse. Therefore, philosophy should consult the practice of the artist, particularly painting. Merleau-Ponty's analysis of painting embodies a profound critique of representational thought, yet at the same time, it shows that this kind of critique does not reject every form of 'giving meaning' or intentionality. The work of art is simultaneously a (bodily) expression and the revelation of the meaning of Being itself. The fission of Being, the elusive visibility, reveals itself in a painting, which could only be made because the painter put into service his or her aesthetic body

Les technologies contemporaines de l’image, telles que les ultrasons, l’endoscopie, et autres IRM et scanners, transforment l’image de notre corps. Dans cet article, cette transformation est particulièrement mise en lumière à partir d’une œuvre de Mona Hatoum intitulée “ Corps étranger ”. Cette œuvre d’art consiste en une projection vidéo d’images endoscopiques de l’intérieur du corps de l’artiste. On dit souvent qu’il est impossible de s’identifier soi-même à partir de ce type d’images dans la mesure où elles sont difficilement reconnaissables comme des parties de son corps propre. Ou encore qu’elles n’appartiennent pas à l’image narcissique du corps. A l’aide d’une analyse phénoménologique et psychanalytique, l’auteur s’attache ici au contraire à montrer que de telles images fournissent une image affective de notre corps propre et qu’à travers elles il devient possible d’affronter l’étrangeté de celui-ci

This article provides a phenomenological analysis of the difference between self-recognition and recognition of another, while referring to some contemporary neuroscientific studies on the rubber hand illusion. It examines the difference between these two forms of recognition on the basis of Husserl’s and Merleau-Ponty’s work. It argues that both phenomenologies, despite their different views on inter-subjectivity, allow for the specificity of recognition of another. In explaining self-recognition, however, Husserl’s account seems less convincing. Research concerning the rubber hand illusion has confirmed that self-recognition involves more than an immediate experience of oneself. Merleau-Ponty’s later work, describing self-recognition as the result of assimilative identification, will be used to explain the possibility of illusion between one’s “hereness” and “thereness”. The possibility of this illusion is inherent to self-recognition, while it is lacking in recognition of another.