The Theology of the Body in Pain
Today at Inside Catholic, blogger extraodinaire Eve Tushnet has an interesting review of Elaine Scarry’s The Body in Pain, which deals with in part with the use and effects of torture. Some excerpts:
In torture, every action is used against you: standing, sitting, even swallowing. (Scarry notes that forced, repeated swallowing was used as torture in Greece, where it was called “making knots”: “Only when a person throws his head back and swallows three times does he begin to apprehend what is involved in one hundred and three or three hundred and three swallows, what atrocities one’s own body, muscle, and bone structure can inflict on oneself.”) Every bodily function is used to hurt and humiliate.
Torture warps language. Torturers, and their apologists, retreat into newspeak terms like “enhanced interrogation”: jargon to hide the reality of muscles in agony after hours of “stress positions,” or the hallucinations of sleep deprivation. Scarry notes, “Standing rigidly for eleven hours can produce as violent muscle and spine pain as can injury from elaborate equipment and apparatus, though any of us outside this situation, used to adjusting our body positions every few moments before even mild discomfort is felt, may not immediately recognize this.”
To describe practices like forced nudity and hooding (obscuring the most obviously human and individual characteristic, the face, and exposing the genitals in defiance of modesty) as “only” humiliation is to misunderstand the entire logic of torture: Dehumanization is thedefinition of torture, and humiliation is the primary means of dehumanization. Recall that two of the most searing photographs from Abu Ghraib — an American woman with a naked Iraqi man on a leash, and a hooded, shrouded man on a box — depict “only” humiliation and “stress positions.”
Comments are closed.
Blackadder,
Thanks for posting this and doing your part to take a stand agaisnt this latest insanity.
The image of torture I have is nothing like what’s described. It’s more like Daniel Pearl having his head sawed off by a Jihadist fanatic. Frankly, while debacle at Abu Ghraib was senseless and immoral, I can think of 3000 people who were working in their offices on 9/11 who would gladly trade places with those jihadist prisoners. I can think of the thousands of Iraqi men, women and children who would prefer to waterboarded than blown up by the jihadists.
I’m not excusing torture or mistreatment of prisoners, but I’m questioning why so much focus on the very small quantity of such abuses occurring at the hands of Americans in relation to the jihadists. Furthermore, the intention of interrogation on the part of American operatives is to secure the safety of innocent people, the intention of their subjects when they were in action was to kill innocent people.
What constitutes torture and who gets to decide what interrogation techniques are torture and which ones are not? Catholic teaching does not provide any specifics definitively.
God Bless,
Matt