Bodies in Pain: Biss’ “The Pain Scale”

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Table of Contents

Summary of the Readings
Personal Reflection/Understanding of the Material
Reactions, Opinions, and Thoughts
Discussion Question
References

Summary of the Readings

Author’s Main Point

Biss’s (2005) main point is the difficulty of rating pain on a scale that has a zero reading as a measure of no suffering. She equates the number 0 to Christ incarnate, points out the inadequacy of the rating, and explains the fallacy of absolutes. Wendell (1993) contends that the feminist theory dwells on “alienation of the self” and feminine and masculine body differences but ignores bodily suffering (p. 328). On their part, Shildrick and Price (1996) argue that ability/disability is a historic, social, and cultural construct for marking dissimilarities associated with the body.

Citations from the Readings

Biss (2005) expresses her own thoughts on pain measurement. She refers to different concepts, including the Fahrenheit and Celsius scales and Dante’s poem, among others. In her article, Wendell (1993) quotes feminists, such as Dona Haraway, and authors writing on disability and pain. Shildrick and Price (1996) cite the works of postmodernism theorists like Sedgwick, Foucault, and Shakespeare to support their argument.

Outline of the Argument

Biss’s (2005) central argument is outlined below.

Zero as an incomprehensible construct – a naught and a quantity simultaneously like Christ (God incarnate)
Zero on a pain scale is linked to fallacies – rating one’s suffering is problematic
Fahrenheit, Celsius, Kelvin, and Beaufort scales have inaccuracies related to absolute zero measurements
Calculus and prime numbers are as abstract as rating one’s pain

Wendell’s (1993) argument is summarized below.

Feminist theory alienates bodily experience
Bodily consciousness arises during ailment or disability
Transcendence or disengagement of oneself from the body is “a luxury of the able-bodied”, not the disabled (Wendell, 1993, p. 328).

Shildrick and Price’s (1996) argument can be outlined as follows:

Postmodernism can help deconstruct identity and reveal how disability is socially and culturally constructed
Disability is a historic, social, and cultural construct meant to depict bodily deformities as problematic
A constant “reiteration of a set of norms” has led to naturalization of the abled/disabled view of the body (Shildrick & Price, 1996, p. 433).

Personal Reflection/Understanding of the Material

My understanding of the material is that pain sensation is a subjective experience, and therefore, quantifying it on a scale is prone to error. Further, learning to live with bodily limitations requires the disabled to transcend or accept their sufferings. Disability, in a social sense, emerges from the repetitive practice of labeling the body as abled or disabled.

Reactions, Opinions, and Thoughts

I concur with Biss’s (2005) argument is that there is no absolute truth. In my opinion, pain is a subjective feeling that cannot be quantified as a zero sensation. I also agree with the view that ability/disability is a historical, social, and cultural construct. In some cultures, psychological disorders are not regarded as a mental disability but as a supernatural punishment for sin. I also believe that the disabled must transcend their bodily limitations to gain social acceptability, avoid stigma, and receive disability benefits.

Discussion Question

How can a disabled person ‘transcend’ his/her disability in conditions of social stigma?

References

Biss, E. (2005). The pain scale.Seneca Review, 35(1), 170-177. Web.

Shildrick, M., & Price, J. (1996). Breaking the boundaries of the broken body. Body & Society, 2(4), 93-113. Web.

Wendell, S. (1993). Feminism, disability, and transcendence of the body. Canadian Women Studies, 13(4), 324-333. Web.

Click Here To Order Now!