Lahey and Borel

1. Summarize the Lahey essay on Borel's essay "The Decorated Body."

The idea that the human race, regardless of culture or geography, modifies the body to brand themselves as human -- to show that they have evolved and are more than animals -- is well reasoned, both historically and in Borel's essay. However Lahey seems to argue that the claim should delve deeper. The motivations and reasons behind the modifications and the political, cultural and moral implications of those manipulations need to enter into the discussion.

2. Discuss at least two ideas from the Borel essay that Lahey either ignores or misunderstands.

I happen to agree with Lahey that the argument leaves one lacking. As is the case with most anthropological studies, Borel focuses on the big picture. He takes on humanity as a whole. His claim is broad and simple -- humans decorate themselves to publicly brand themselves as a human, part of an organized group. And he does a solid job of supporting his claim with a wide and varied parade of mainly primitive cultures that, in often startling ways, accomplish that feat.

The thing is though, any moderately intelligent person, with or without an Intro to anthropology class, probably knows this. Since the first Cro-whatever-man threw on a Cave Bear skin to keep out the cold, modifying the body has declared us as above beasts and members of a group. I bet back in the Cro-whatever days, that guy who killed the Cave Bear probably shared the pelt with the rest of his clan signifying they were part of a group. Don't mess with that tribe; they killed a Cave Bear.

Seriously though, although Lahey wants more from Borel's claim (and me too by the way), the claim is what it is. I believe Lahey misunderstood what Borel was trying to say. Borel is claiming that humans do this, not why. In fact, he states in paragraph 8 that "The fact that such motivations and pretexts depend on aesthetic, erotic, hygienic, or even medical considerations has no influence on the result, ..." He acknowledges that there are other, deeper reasons behind his claim but doesn't dig into them.

So Borel supports his claim adequately, but by making a blanket statement he is bound to run into trouble and the sort of misunderstandings that came the way of Lahey. In paragraph 10 Borel says that "The absolutely naked body is considered as brutish, reduced to the level of nature where no distinction is made between man and beast." However, most of the examples he used were from cultures whose idea of the "naked body" is much different than that of the Western cultures. In the next sentence of paragraph 10 he states that a decorated or clothed body "if even only in a belt" exhibits humanity. For a long time "only a belt" did not signify humanity to Europeans and Americans. It was still a brutish, naked body. Without putting his examples into some context, Borel makes his case murkier than it needs to be.