Sept. 8. Fleshing Bodies

This short week we sought to understand the myriad roles that bodies and embodiment play in the study of Latinas and Religion, and what are some critical terms and new methods to engage flesh, the body, sinfulness, and new readings of these matters.  To that end, we dwelled on a theoretical journey on flesh, and not.  Poetics of flesh.

Here are some questions to guide your reflection about this journey:

. How does flesh, as a sign conditioning identity, factor in the constitution and representation of religion?

. How does flesh relate to the body and embodiment, and vice versa, in the making or unmaking of religion?  How can one see, experience, remember, flesh?  Or bodies?  Or a body? 

. How does one factor devotion, subordination, and grace into these equations?

. How is it that Latina bodies can inspire, elicit, or provoke devotion and violence at once, and what role does religion play in such inspiration?  What’s the Bible got to do with it?

. How does flesh constitute both a boundary and a gate to freedom?  . How do colonialism and coloniality impact the understanding of flesh?  How does the third space of the Caribbean help us understand flesh better?

. How does a music video like iLe’s Triángulo represent these questions differently, or not, from JLo’s On the Floor?

By Sunday at 5pm, please post your reflection on one or more of these questions, as it relates to both your reading of Rivera Rivera’s Poetics of the Flesh and our discussion in class.

15 comments

  1. I want to reflect on the intersectionality of flesh, religion, and freedom. There is a poetics, an intentionality, in the “bible” of any religion, there is also a set of poetics intentionality, for those interpreting those texts at times, in different religions these overlap. We perceive what religion thinks of flesh as what all those who participate in certain practices believe flesh is. We have seen that flesh has been used as the downfall for women and minorities, something that can be shattering. We fight to free those who have been grasped by the unequal restrictions and see those who appear to be in those restrictions as restrained. But a growing body on the international level has also given significance to the idea that looking like you classify in those restrictions doesn’t always mean you are restrained. In an anthropology-religion conversation on campus, a girl wearing a hijab pointed out that by her wearing the hijab isn’t a restriction imposed by those who deem it to be in place but rather a decision on her part. She put an emphasis on how men and those in power have used her sacred texts to relate this practice to her being a “good religious girl”. Unfortunately, this conversation quickly ended and I couldn’t continue listening to what she had to say. So this freedom/religion/flesh intersectionality continues with this question mark. But this question mark results because those have interpreted texts and written texts in a way to put one gender above the other. It is how the actual religion has been interpreted and intertwined with a patriarchal society that has put the flesh of a male embodiment above the flesh of his own mother. The word choice of men and politics has had women turn their backs on their own personal flesh and have to go through the emotional turmoil of realizing their flesh to be worthy of appreciation and valuable or a black woman who has to learn to love her skin color. As we try to unravel the injustices in this society, the idea of coloniality is coming into light as it is figured out how to address systems founded on institutions.

    1. When discussing flesh, I think of it as being rawer and in pieces while the body is sacred and whole. On page 2 of Rivera’s piece, they mention how “words also become flesh.” That statement stood out to me because words have power and can physically affect someone; they become real practices instead of just thoughts. Flesh represents truth and experience, which can prevent one from being naïve and creates boundaries from unwanted things. In addition, the flesh serves as a gate to freedom in that it is not viewed as so holy that it must stay intact and whole. Desire plays a significant role in this matter as lust comes from the physical being. Lust is a natural feeling- with physical attraction, the flesh provides a way to invite attention and for someone to feel free within themselves. For example, many women today show off their bodies as they feel confident or wish to express sexuality (though it does not automatically permit action) as women have always dealt with oppression. So, the flesh allows for liberation in oneself. In relation to Latinas, they have been oppressed by the man’s interpretation of the Bible as they have been forced to wear modest clothing, maintain virginity until marriage, cook, and clean in the house. This restriction often leads them to view the flesh as something that needs to be shown, with examples such as Shakira and JLo who encourage women, particularly Latinas, to feel proud of their flesh.
      Regarding JLo’s and iLe’s music videos, each depicts their own theme about the body. In Triángulo, iLe apologizes and excuses herself after she shares everything she has with the one man in the audience. Also, in the beginning of the video there are shadows of people applauding, but there is only the man which signifies society encouraging her actions but society being in the hands of the man. Meanwhile, JLo is more expressive and acts proudly about her physique. She performs unapologetically, understanding that her flesh is not something to be ashamed of.
      In the Caribbean, every country has its own language and culture even though they all came from Africa. With many Christians believing that white is equivalent to purity, the view of Afro-Latinas is immediately negative. That creates inherent racism, which separates the Caribbeans from the rest of Latin America. Not to blame the Bible, but simply the interpretation of it by men who have ingrained discrimination of color and gender or sex. The Latina is already oppressed enough, but the Afro-Latina has even more hardship because of her skin. Her flesh is seen as less desirable, which goes back to the conversation about flesh and the body. Her body is less “pure” because she naturally is darker.

  2. Flesh, is deemed as inappropriate and sexual in the context, of representation of religion. Flesh causes women to be sexualized. If they show too much flesh there is no way that they could be religious, because if they show a lot of skin they are a “whore”. A women’s flesh is not her own, it is examined by everyone else’s lens except her own. A women’s grant of respect, love, protection or safety are all determined by her flesh. As a women’s flesh is looked at through the lens of men, it is something sexual to please a man. A man will have the willingness to disrespect her, hurt her, or violate her depending on how her flesh is portrayed. Society today pushes the narrative that if a woman is wearing too much revealing clothes she “deserves” any ill attention or actions that come her way. Through a religious lens a woman’s right to her beliefs in religion are stripped away from her if she does not portray herself the way the Church accepts. A woman’s body is not her own, it’s everyone else’s, as they are telling her what to do with it and what she gets because of her flesh.
    This is seen in Triángulo and On the Floor. In On The Floor, all of the women are sexualized and their flesh is used as sexual objects for the pleasure of men. Whereas in Triángulo the woman is more covered, docile, quiet, and not as “loud” or sexualized as Jennifer is.

  3. As an Art History major, it is difficult to not see the image of a bodily figure and immediately associate some sort of signification to the image, though this is not simply an academic phenomenon. The body of a person is an extension of them, yes, but it also represents the involuntary intersections of that person and their culture, ethnicity, national origin, race, religion, sexuality, or gender. So, while one’s body is the subject of oneself, it is also a vessel containing these exterior effects as part of their own lineage and origin. This makes it difficult to discern whether someone’s body represents who they are by choice, or if their body is assigned to them by someone else. Frantz Fanon did an excellent job of calling into question blackness and national identity, arguing that one does not always have agency when it comes to the development of the body as the linguistically discursive subject. Additionally, the question of the body as an object is excellently explored in Patricia Hill-Collins’s examinations of race and the value of the body. According to her and Michel Foucault, religion and politics, worked hand-in-hand to construct narratives in Western society that work to police certain bodies into self-containment, whereby once society adopts certain stereotypes, beliefs, and creeds, it is then difficult to deconstruct these narratives after their assignment. I say all of this to suggest that Rivera’s “Poetics of the Flesh” handles the question of religiosity, religion, history, the physical human form, and the construct of the body to understand how and why it is the case that Latinx bodies have assumed the marks they have received over time. Such as with Fanon’s and the others’ analyses, it is crucial to speak as that body which is subjected to the attacks it receives, be it politically, ideologically, or physically, from those bodies in power (white, cishet, male, Christian, etc.). There is an interesting intersection between religion and the body, as many have noted, which coincides with colonialism in a tragically fascinating way, for it is partly through religion that empires expanded and colonized others’ lands, such as the Spaniards and Portuguese claiming Latin and Central America as theirs, utilizing the encomienda system and forced conversions to further their own means to an end while murdering on a genocidal level the indigenous peoples of the region. In the Americas, the history evolved with religion and politics intertwined, and the indigenous religions and languages were very much lost. The narrative that remained in Western and white thought was such that those people living in the Spanish and Portuguese colonies was that they were subjects, workers, slaves, and converts nowehere near the level of white superiority the European colonizers lauded. The foreignness of the language and skin color of these colonized peoples (some/many of whom were also African slaves forced to travel across the Atlantic to work after the indigenous peoples’ numbers dwindled) further divided them from the white colonizers, fueling the white discourse that tainted their once-free existence. Perhaps this seems too much a generalization of the history, but bodies, as they exist today, bear the marks of their histories, religion included. Christianity, like many other hegemonic institutions, acts as an additional level of bio-policing power, whether that’s juridical/socio-political (i.e. abortion or “gay marriage”), or physical-spiritual (i.e. don’t have sex until marriage or you won’t be a virgin; you’ll go to hell for sinning and being a bad person, etc.). Without critical analyses and deconstructive work intending to pressure paradigmatic thought, it would be impossible to understand what Rivera aims with her concept of “poetics,” but her work not only aids and uplifts the Latinx identity, but it also works to alter Theology by offering new insight into the intersectional existences that go beyond whiteness, heterosexuality, cisgenderness, Western notions of Christianity, and the body itself.

  4. I’ve never liked my flesh. I don’t think I ever saw myself as a “body”; a whole, complete being or even object. I guess I could chalk it up to a mixture of religious brainwashing, double consciousness, and gender dysphoria, among other things. I’ve also never been in a religious space which embraced the corporeal and the shattered before. Glissant’s concept of poetics as processes of creation stemming from the joining of incomplete (or becoming?) flesh feels so transformational and validating. It also gives me more hope for Latin America and the Carribean, seeing how we can break free from imposed models of relationality.

    The Latina’s flesh as an aporia was also an interesting concept. I’ve experienced internalized hierarchies in my own flesh and presentation, but I never seriously reflected on the simultaneous labeling of Latinas as both whores and virginal, much less how important this duality is to the maintenance of Latinx culture as it has historically been defined. Latina women “are” whores and/or “are” virgins, but they cannot truly possess their own flesh on a paradigmatic level. I see this through my experiences with members of my family and group of friends who, in many ways, always “were” but never “had” their own flesh. The Latinas in my life have always been forced to be icons of Mary while still being hyper-sexualized; prudes and whores by virtue of the myths and histories branded on their flesh. At the same time, there’s so much revolutionary potential within said flesh and its poetics.

  5. Rivera’s “Both Flesh and Not” notes an interesting distinction between “flesh” and “body.” Flesh is a muddled term with a tendency to change in meaning. While, body refers to a whole entity. Rivera emphasizes that this change is what distinguishes the two terms from each other. “Flesh is conceived as formless and impermanent, crossing the boundaries between the individual body and the world.” Flesh extends to the world in the societal and religious context. Flesh denotes a negative connotation in religious aspects because it is seen as inappropriate and overly sexual. The Church demands women to portray themselves in a particular manner that exemplifies innocence and modesty to adhere to the Church’s beliefs. Society alike has developed harsh narratives and labels for women who choose to embrace their ‘flesh.’ Society categorizes women who show too much skin as “whores” or “easy” and rationalize harassment by blaming a woman’s appearance because she was “asking for it.” Flesh constitutes a boundary within religion and social norms but also a gate to freedom as a women to embrace her own body and feel good for herself.

  6. As we discussed in class, Christianity refers to flesh as sin, but not the body. I think as Rivera stated in the reading, flesh doesn’t just refer to the skin that makes up our bodies, but rather our words and actions as well. “Words also become flesh” is a phrase that stood out to me, especially in the sense that flesh can break a body. As we discussed in class, a flesh wound is obvious while a broken body is not obvious to the people around it, unless they look closely. That reminds me of how in a lot of latino households, mental health is not taken as seriously as it should be. “Get over it” and “It’s not that serious” are phrases that I’ve heard a lot in my household, not necessarily from my parents, but from other relatives. I think if we tried to correlate this idea of broken bodies not being as serious as wounded flesh, we could refer to Jesus being crucified on the cross; his flesh being broken by the nails. In a way, I think a lot of people think “If you’re not literally being nailed to a cross, your problems are not that important,” which is a very dangerous mindset.

  7. In the introduction of Both Flesh and Not, Mayra Rivera argues that in Christianity, flesh is sin in itself. Not only is flesh intertwined with sin in Christianity, but women and sexual minorities are trapped within this narrative. Women, especially Latinas, are told from a young age that they need to “cover up” and act “respectable” because they can tempt men. Women are held to a different standard than men since they are connected to sin in these ways (Unit 2 Lecture). Rivera’s argument propels me to think about the story of Adam and Eve. Whenever I learned about this story as a child, I was told that Eve was at fault because she was the one that fell into the snake’s temptation. This narrative, however, does not acknowledge the ways in which Adam was also responsible for sin. I think that, as a society, we must continue to ask ourselves why we continue to believe this narrative that women are synonymous with sin by their very flesh. Why are men exempt from this representation in religion and in everyday life?

  8. I found the statement “Flesh…alludes to sin, lust, and death [in Christianity]. To be described as living ‘according to the flesh’ — as Jews, women, and sexual minorities have been — is to be considered trapped in sinfulness” (Rivera, 1) to be very impactful. This statement highlights the fact that flesh is perceived differently than the body, even though those two terms are often used interchangeably, and that the flesh of a woman is deemed to not only belong to her, but also belong to all those around her. The extent to which the flesh of a woman is exhibited, by the clothes that she wears, by the scars that she exhibits, and by the color of her skin, influences the way that society treats her, behaves with her, and observes her. I strongly agree with Olivia’s point in her blogpost, as she states that “Flesh causes women to be sexualized.” A woman is characterized by the amount of flesh that she chooses to display. If a woman displays too much flesh, then she is considered to be, and is labeled as a whore, a tramp, or another derogatory term. On the other hand, if a woman displays too little flesh, then she is considered to be, and labeled as a prude, orthodox, or buttoned-down. Society, and the male gaze in particular, believe it to be their right to judge women, and to brand women in a certain way depending on their flesh. Hence, I believe that flesh constitutes both a boundary and a gate to freedom literally, based on the extent to which a woman chooses to display or exhibit her flesh. Exhibiting more flesh could indicate that a woman is symbolically trying to free herself from the shackles of patriarchy, and is trying to make the independent decision of being free, uninhibited, and confident in her own flesh and skin. Showing minimal flesh could highlight that a woman is symbolically trying to put distance between herself and the world, and is trying to shield herself from the male gaze, from society’s judgement, and from abhorrent labels and characterizations. Hence, through their flesh, women can feel empowered to decide how they wish to not only ‘be,’ but also ‘become’ their true selves, and portray themselves in society, and the world, especially since “flesh [itself] is always becoming. Air, water, food, sunlight, and even societies of microorganisms enter our bodies to weave the delicate tissue of our flesh” (Rivera, 2).
    Furthermore, I believe that timestamp 1:59 of Jennifer Lopez’s ‘On the Floor’ music video epitomizes the statement, “flesh is a concept prone to metaphysical excess, used not only to demonize corporeality but also to spiritualize it — in both cases losing touch with ordinary bodies” (Rivera, 1), as a large amount of Lopez’s flesh is on display as she is dressed provocatively and extravagantly, while she is also sporting a necklace with a Christian cross. In my opinion, Lopez is trying to highlight the fact that a woman can be religious, despite the fact that she exhibits more of her flesh, and that displaying a lot of flesh does not mean that a woman is sinful, lustful, or prone to death. Additionally, I believe that it is important to note that flesh is also closely intertwined with intimacy, another taboo topic within the realm of Christianity, especially when engaged in before marriage. This theme of intimacy is continuously explored in iLe’s ‘Triángulo’ music video, especially at timestamp 2:41, proving that the negative theological connotations historically associated with flesh are inaccurate, and that flesh can be celebrated in a positive way, since intimacy is a human necessity, and a ubiquitous trait.

  9. “I do not encounter flesh without a body.” (Rivera 8) While the flesh and the body are not interchangeable, like I previously thought, their existence is dependent on each other. Social expectations and obliteration of a body cannot be done without the flesh because a body can’t physically be separated from the flesh. This means that a body can’t run away from its skin color, gender, disability, etc. and it is bound to be a target. Colonialism thrives in justifying actions based on the need to save a group of people with “inferior” race, gender, or ethnicity. Coloniality also comes hand in hand with socially instilled behaviors put in place to keep people obedient and subordinate. The rules on the flesh of women that keep us trapped because there’s no middle ground for us. We can’t have a perfect amount of whore and prude. That’s why Caribbean poetics is beautiful. It acknowledges the fact that creation comes even after obliteration. It helps to understand flesh because even after shattering an indigenous group or an African group, they become the Caribbean. Just as flesh is becoming and infinitely changing. This topic was hard for me to understand and even as I’m typing this, I’m having a second thoughts but the more I read over Rivera’s words the more I see the depth that comes from the distinction of body and flesh.

  10. From reading Both Flesh and Not, by Rivera Rivera, I think that the author made an interesting point when he made a clear distinction between the “flesh” and the “body”. The “flesh” has more to do with the core of one’s identity and place in the world while the body is a physical entity. The “flesh” also therefore extends to social hierarchies and the language surrounding how we refer to different groups of people. Following Rivera’s approach, I can appreciate how he chooses to not dismiss, but fully engage with the tradition Christain interpretations of the “flesh”, and extend that logic to show how the term “body” alone is insufficient. By establishing an essential metaphysical significance or value to human beings after seeing the fragility of human life. The Christian interpretation of the “flesh” seems to provide the basis for respecting and listening to the lived experiences of those in suffering in order to acknowledge their full humanity. The term “body” itself seems to imply a standard or limitation on the ways or types of human beings that we consider worthy or valuable, and therefore a more abstract term like “flesh” addresses this problematic underlying assumption. This broad concept of relating the Christain faith to the lives of everyday Christians was a broad concept that I also observed in our readings from last week regarding Christainity in the Latino world. With regards to the struggle of Afro Caribbeans to understand their heritage, I was able to understand how one’s skin color and group history of persecution/slavery had effects far deeper and long lasting than harm to the physical body. The idea of the “flesh” common to all human beings helps to humanize those of African descent and fight against ideas restricting “humanity” to white men. At the same time, it seems like the idea of their “flesh” is restricting them from acceptance due to deep seated social and cultural structures that view their “flesh” as inferior and unworthy. For Latinas, their “flesh” is defined by both their violence/objectification in pop culture along with the Christian values that they are often associated with. Objectifying sexist rhetoric is directed at Latinas that “step out of line” and defy the supposed “authority” that faith and their community have over her flesh. The marianismo archetype, heavily influenced by the Christian Bible, outlines the standards that Latinas are to live by. Adherence to there standards represents a symbolic submission of their flesh to the wishes of the community. This submission is also their gateway to being seen as “good women” who are worthy of protection/honor.

  11. To be flesh is not the same as being the body. The body gives one room to be an individual, and have parts no one can see or understand. To inhabit the body means to be more than skin deep, but when you are flesh your existence is in the eye of the beholder. Rivera explains that to be seen as “‘living according to the flesh’ —as Jews, women, and sexual minorities have been—is to be considered trapped in sinfulness”. As we see with Adam and Eve, when a woman is left to be a body she is naturally indulgent, selfish, and *somehow* carnal. So instead, the woman is taken from being a body to being flesh. The identity of womanness is then made in subordination to men.

    When a woman is flesh, she is an offering. If she does her job correctly, she will be devoted, subordinate and graceful. A woman’s devoted flesh will give without taking, it will cook, clean, raise your children and clean your home. Her subordinate flesh will work around your time, your words, and your opinions. And her graceful flesh will accept both these positions without making it an inconvenience for anyone else. To embody this flesh is the only way a woman can save herself from her own sinfulness and be holy for her God, her husband.

    When a woman chooses to be a body, she is a puta. Her same body that could’ve produced devotion if she “behaved” inspires violence when she doesn’t. Regardless, the decision isn’t up to her. The decision is in the hands of her husband, her family, her community and her religion, and if she doesn’t listen she risks losing everything. Rather than see her own body, a Latina is told her value comes from her relationships with others, so the loneliness of being a woman’s body is terrifying. Because of this I think a lot of Latinas resign themselves to being flesh, and unfortunately this coerced affirmation will be used to justify that of her sisters and daughters in the future.

  12. From reading Both Flesh and Not, by Rivera Rivera, I think that the author made an interesting point when he made a clear distinction between the “flesh” and the “body”. The “flesh” has more to do with the core of one’s identity and place in the world while the body is a physical entity. The “flesh” also therefore extends to social hierarchies and the language surrounding how we refer to different groups of people. Following Rivera’s approach, I can appreciate how he chooses to not dismiss, but fully engage with the tradition Christain interpretations of the “flesh”, and extend that logic to show how the term “body” alone is insufficient. By establishing an essential metaphysical significance or value to human beings after seeing the fragility of human life. The Christian interpretation of the “flesh” seems to provide the basis for respecting and listening to the lived experiences of those in suffering in order to acknowledge their full humanity. The term “body” itself seems to imply a standard or limitation on the ways or types of human beings that we consider worthy or valuable, and therefore a more abstract term like “flesh” addresses this problematic underlying assumption. This broad concept of relating the Christain faith to the lives of everyday Christians was a broad concept that I also observed in our readings from last week regarding Christainity in the Latino world. With regards to the struggle of Afro Caribbeans to understand their heritage, I was able to understand how one’s skin color and group history of persecution/slavery had effects far deeper and long lasting than harm to the physical body. The idea of the “flesh” common to all human beings helps to humanize those of African descent and fight against ideas restricting “humanity” to white men. At the same time, it seems like the idea of their “flesh” is restricting them from acceptance due to deep seated social and cultural structures that views their “flesh” as inferior and unworthy.

  13. I find it incredible that in Christianity, God has no Flesh. The most powerful, the one that knows all, isn’t represented by a flesh. Its probably a deliberate choice, as it is harder to question something that you can’t see, touch, etc. All of the other figures in Christianity have a flesh, they are humanized, in an attempt to increase the relatability of these figures, but also immortalize them. There is a whole discussion about if these representations are accurate, which I won’t get into, but for sure it increases people’s devotion. In Brazil, I find that Catholics pray more to saints than to God, they build altars in their homes, make towels with embroidery and use figures around their necks. So, the flesh helps people to place these spiritual figures in their cotidiano, it is a constant reminder of the presence and importance of their figures – its nearly as if having a human flesh they are looking towards people. And flesh here is different than body. Body is this exterior shield, while flesh kind of carries the experiences, knowledge, that one has lived. It is the bridge between the purely physical and spiritual.

    A second thought about flesh is the gender you represent. A woman’s flesh and body is seen in a different hierarchical level than the mans. Eve was made from Adam, she always knew her role would ultimately be being an extension of him. Women flesh will always carry anguish and restlessness, women are confined to the notion that their flesh isn’t entirely theirs, but of everyone around them.

  14. I acknowledge that I am returning to this blog late in the semester, but I can say that I have a deeper understanding on this particular subject now based on my decision to write about violence for the final paper. At the start of this class, I struggled to understand how flesh, religion, violence, and Latinas overlapped and what to make of these intersections. Now, I would say that if I had to use one term to then breakdown to explain and demonstrate this overlap, it would be marianismo. Marianismo is a term that we discussed throughout the course and built upon further as we added layers to our definition of the term. Its definition encompasses this violence, submission, and embodiment of what it means to be a Latina. At the same time though, it is the strength, wisdom, and devotion that Latinas hold as they perform their “duties” in society. Where these two definitions intersection, though, is where the flesh comes in. The strength of a Latina is seen as they are able to endure a level of violence, as if they have a higher threshold for pain. The devotion is seen as their willingness to embody all of the attributes of the Virgin Mary. This then perpetuates the submission aspect of the definition to mean that the body of the Latina is not necessarily but a vessel of God’s creation meant to serve a purpose (the purpose being reproduction).

Leave a Reply to Valerie Barajas Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *