The extended body
Body modding covers a range of practices - from ones that are already very common in our culture (piercing one's ears and wearing earrings, getting a tattoo) to ones that many people still consider "out there" (breast implants and plastic surgery, various kinds of piercing, neck rings, foot binding, genital modifications, scarification and self-mutilation, and so forth). Sex reassignment surgery may not quite fit into the conception of body modding as generally understood, but it is an example of technological modification that has gone from being fringe to mainstream in the 21st century.
In the the second half of the 20th century body modding tended to have an aesthetic or creative connotation. An attitude that saw "the body as territory" became popular in alternative circles and gradually moved into mainstream culture. Many people have now embraced the idea that they can change and augment their bodies as a form of self-expression. One direction this has increasingly taken is implanting things in or below the skin. These can be purely "cosmetic" objects, or, increasingly, technological devices like the ones discussed by Neil Harbisson and Kevin Warwick.
Marshall McLuhan saw media and technology as "extensions of man" and a growing subculture sees more tangible technological extensions such as prostheses as opportunities to grow and enhance the self and the human race as a whole.
Many disabled people have embraced body modding and there is evidence to suggest that these experimenters may be moving from a marginalized status in our culture to arguably the pioneers of a more creative future where we will all be uniquely diverse in terms of what makes up our "made" bodies. Often there is a markedly aestheticist aspect to what the disabled do to augment their bodies in interesting ways. The emphasis is on cool design and self-expression. Sheena McKenzie (2013), for instance, celebrates such artful modification of prostheses as Jo-Jo Cranfield's artificial arm, which includes a neon python that slithers in and out of the limb, or model and singer Viktoria Modesta's Swarovski crystal leg.
Modesta became a bit of a pop star, whose breakout video "Prototype" (2014) dramatized the rethinking of disability and the liberation of all of us from the accidents of birth (and of accidents):
You don't have to be disabled to play with an augmented body. Perhaps the most famous figure to explore the extended body is Australian performance artist Stellarc. He talks about many of his projects in this Vienna TedX talk from December 2014. His most famous antic, growing a third ear on his arm, is discussed starting around 9 minutes in. I suggest you watch the whole video, however, punctuated by Stellarc's childlike "mad scientist" laughs, and ending with humans who have turbine hearts - and thus no heartbeats:
As with the extended mind, discussed previously in the course, our readiness to accept the extended body as part of ourselves and each other may partly depend on how much we are hard-line materialists, and also how much we appreciate the bodies we already have. If you see only the meat you were born with as legitimately you, you may bristle at the idea that you could construct a more authentic self through artificial body modification and augmentation. On the other hand, people are doing it; and as with Neil Harbisson's passport photo these extended bodies are beginning to get legal and institutional recognition, at least in some countries. Are your breast implants part of you? How about a piercing? Why or why not? More radical questions along these lines will be facing us in our lifetimes (or at least yours {:-| ).
Prosthetics such as artificial limbs for amputees already have a long tradition at this point in history, and when used to replace damaged or missing body parts, they are generally accepted as entirely "legitimate" by the general public. There are now artificial limbs that can be controlled through muscular movement, and the day is coming when such prostheses may be grown biologically and/or be hooked directly to our brains or nervous systems, effectively behaving like the natural body parts they replace or augment. Probably often better than the part they have replaced. Maybe this has already happened.
Philosophically, it is not easy to draw a line between the bodyware and implants that are "necessary" or "natural" and those that may be considered "inhuman" or "perverse." It could be argued, after all, that anyone who wears glasses, or certainly a hearing aid, is a "cyborg." If you have a hearing aid, is the aid part of you when you are using it? What about a pacemaker or an artificial organ? And how about a tattoo?
Why should or shouldn't people be able to do whatever they want to with their bodies? People work out and starve themselves, dye their hair, wear makeup, and choose clothes as ways of presenting themselves differently to the world. Why not let them add organs, limbs, senses, implanted LED displays, mood-altered subcutaneous imaging devices, and whatever else they can think of? Whether you're personally excited by the idea or not, the future is likely to bring more and more of this.
Some people still balk at the "unnaturalness" of the more radical modifications. There is a tendency to see the "natural" (traditional, animal) as the "real" or correct or acceptable, and the unnatural as, well, unnatural. Neil Harbisson's colour-blindness prosthesis - however peculiar - is intended to make up for something he is lacking "naturally," so that's okay. But what if I, who am not colour-blind, had the same device implanted? Would it be okay for Harbission because he is disabled but not for me because it would be purely for the sake of enhancing my senses beyond those of "natural" humans?
We habitually use technology to replace or enhance "defective" organs, but is there any real reason we shouldn't use it to give ourselves senses, powers, appendages, and means of self-expression that humans aren't naturally born with? Why not have infrared vision, the ability to sense electromagnetic fields (it's possible that we already have this ability in a limited way)? Why not be able to hear the frequencies dogs can hear? It would be useful, and maybe those sounds are beautiful. Why not have both male and female sex organs? Why not have Vulcan ears or prehensile tails if we think that looks cool or makes our lives better? What if you could change your skin and hair colour as easily as you change your clothes?
These are some of the questions the transhumanists are now asking us to take seriously. They may sound like concerns out of a science fiction novel, but possibilities as radical as these will almost certainly become more common during your lifetime - at least for the wealthy or for people in some countries. Some of them are already here.
The lesson on identity discussed the idea of found and made identities. Is technology going to make possible true (physical, not just virtual) (re-)made identities for us all (or anyone who can afford them), where we adjust or remix or mash up the "accidents of birth" through modding, biotechnologies such as gene therapy, or synthetic body elements? Will this mean a level playing field at last, where people choose their identities, right down to their sex(es), skin colour(s), and more? Maybe we should look at our physical identities as a kind of game, something to play with and use as a canvas for our creativity, as so many people already do in the limited ways they can.
The Challenges to Inclusivity
In Canada at least, we live in a world of increasing inclusivity, with many institutions normalizing practices such as trans washroom policies and so forth. The advent of personalized body modding will only invite more acceptance of diversity in the future, and potentially make each individual person a unique combination of attributes. It seems important for us to continue to grow our tolerance and inclusion for what will likely be a huge number of individually diverse and self-identified human beings. Will the control of our bodily expression lead to the end of discrimination and all the -isms based on physical attributes? Will this new explosion in physical diversity create new challenges to our appreciation of Others?
Will affinity, not biology, gender, ethnicity, etc, be how we participate in subcultures in the future? Will found cultural identities (race, gender) based on the accidents of birth be replaced with made identities based on personally chosen identities and affinities?
Will we continue to grow in our celebration of difference?
Or ...
Will body-modding be only for the rich and powerful, and will it be "accidents of birth" for the rest of us?
Will our growing diversity perhaps lead to even greater chauvinism and intolerance? Will our personal non-“accidental” identities feel even more “right” to us when they are matters of choice; will our affinity groups compete with or even fight against those who have different made identities?
It seems possible that even more difference and diversity will break down categories like race and gender beyond them being useful guidelines for chauvinism - maybe we're already beginning to experience that now. Can we deal with a world where everyone is an individual, because everyone looks kinda "different"? Or where people choose their bodies the way they choose fashion statements today, and people's birth bodies simply aren't as obvious and important any more?