The rise of body studies has, since its development in the early 1980s, been characterized by a resilience and creativity that shows no signs of abating. There are various reasons for this success, but two are especially worthy of note. Socially informed studies of the materialities, capacities and connectedness of body subjects have maintained their capacity to advance disciplinary, cross-disciplinary and inter-disciplinary work on the subject into new agendas [1,2]. Additionally, emerging studies in the field continue to facilitate a sustained interrogation of those residual categories that have helped to define, but also restrict, the reach and ambition of sociology and related disciplines, and advance our understanding of social actions, social relationships and societies. Thus, in contrast to the traditional sociological concern with abstract ‘social facts’ that threatened, at times, to render redundant a focus on the physical constitution of those subject to them [3], sociologists of embodiment have explored the corporeal consequences of social structures, while also highlighting how the bodily components of agency and interaction were affected by, and became meaningful to people through, such factors as health, illness and dis/ability.
References
[1]
Shilling, C. The Body and Social Theory; Sage: London, UK, 2012.
[2]
Routledge Handbook of Body Studies; Turner, B.S., Ed.; Routledge: London, UK, 2012.
[3]
Durkheim, E. The Rules of Sociological Method; Macmillan: Houndmills, UK, 1982.
[4]
Mellor, P.A.; Shilling, C. Re-forming the Body: Religion, Community and Modernity; Sage/TCS: London, UK, 1997.
[5]
Mol, A. The Body Multiple: Ontology in Medical Practice; Duke University Press: Durham, NC, USA, 2003.
[6]
Barad, K. Meeting the Universe Halfway; Duke University Press: Durham, NC, USA, 2007.
[7]
New Materialisms; Coole, D., Frost, S., Eds.; Duke University Press: Durham, NC, USA, 2010.
[8]
Michael, M.; Rosengarten, M. Medicine: Experimentation, politics, emergent bodies. Body Soc. 2012, 18, 1–17, doi:10.1177/1357034X12451860.
[9]
Featherstone, M. Body image and affect in consumer culture. Body Soc. 2010, 16, 193–221, doi:10.1177/1357034X09354357.
[10]
Levine, D. Visions of the Sociological Tradition; Chicago University Press: Chicago, IL, USA, 1995.
[11]
Wrong, D. The Problem of Order. What Unites and Divides Society; Harvard University Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 1994.
[12]
Parsons, T. The Structure of Social Action; The Free Press: New York, NY, USA, 1968; Volume 1.
[13]
Shilling, C. Series editor’s introduction. In Waste Matters: New Perspectives on Food and Society; Evans, D., Campbell, H., Murcott, A., Eds.; The Sociological Review Monograph Series; Wiley: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2013; pp. 1–4.
[14]
Munro, R. The disposal of place: Facing modernity in the Kitchen-diner. Sociol. Rev. 2013, 60, 212–231, doi:10.1111/1467-954X.12046.
[15]
Anderson, N. The Hobo. The Sociology of the Homeless Man; Chicago University Press: Chicago, IL, USA, 1923.
[16]
Whyte, W.F. Street Corner Society. The Social Structure of an Italian Slum; Chicago University Press: Chicago, IL, USA, 1943.
[17]
Bittner, E. The police on skid row: A study of peace keeping. Am. Socio. Rev. 1967, 32, 699–717, doi:10.2307/2092019.
[18]
These studies thus constitute critically informed contributions to our understanding of the relationship between the construction of social order and the classification of humans as waste.
[19]
Douglas, M. Purity and Danger; Routledge: London, UK. 2002/1966.
[20]
Agamben, G. Homo Sacer. Sovereign Power and Bare Life; Stanford University Press: Palo Alto, CA, USA, 1998.
[21]
Wastell, D.; White, S. Blinded by neuroscience: Social Policy and the myth of the infant brain. Families Relat. Soc. 2012, 1, 397–414, doi:10.1332/204674312X656301.
[22]
Wright, J.; Harwood, V. Biopolitics and the ‘Obesity Epidemic’; Routledge: London, UK, 2012.
