The human body is inseparable from pleasure, which can be, first of all, physiological, but also aesthetic, discursive, symbolic, political, etc. However, the social attitude towards pleasure is contradictory, so certain types are morally or legally condemned while others are approved (those considered to be noble, creative pleasure versus simple and decadent entertainment or, on the other hand, a pathological form of pleasure). The different valuation of bodily pleasure and its "politicization" can also be observed in an ideological sense, but even more narrowly through a power conflict in which gender, class, race, culture, subculture do not have the same positions or privileges when it comes to bodily pleasures. The hierarchy of pleasures or, rather, the right to them, has to do with the structural elements of a certain culture. In the book Popular culture J. Fisk precisely deals with pleasures from the domain of the culture of the same name and their social status (in addition to those that belong to the so-called hegemonic pleasures that are tied to social affiliation, the exercise of power over the weak, the exercise of power over oneself in the form of self-discipline and self-punishment, the satisfaction of conformism, etc. ).
Regarding the body as a source of pleasure, i.e. its practice, experience and, finally, space for realization, there are two opposite attitudes - acceptance and rejection. Throughout history, bodily pleasures have been alternately despised and glorified. Philosopher and semiotician M. Bakhtin saw in excessive bodily pleasures the essence of carnival inversions. Also, the carnival celebration celebrates, in a certain way, the collective life at the expense of the impermanence of the individual. In addition, in order to maintain order, it must be disrupted in a controlled manner, i.e. take place in cycles to maintain the system. Hence the mask that covers the face and body (costume) as a means of manipulation, a symbol of a distorted reality, an obsession that temporarily "abortizes" inequalities in the established course of life. Similar to that R. Bart uses sexual metaphors to explain the concept enjoyment (bliss, ecstasy) vs to plaisir (in the meaning of the pleasure created by society and which is accepted, i.e. forms part of social identity) at the moment of the invasion of culture into nature, analyzing the connection between dissolute, also carnivalesque, behavior and society's efforts to control it. Their central theme is less a question of individual freedom, but more the "liberation" of the social organism (when and on what occasions, again with the intention of introducing order into the mainstream of culture, since order, precisely, sometimes needs to be "erased" in order to regenerated). Unlike those who, value-neutrally, explained bodily pleasures in the social sphere, such as carnival and other celebratory moments, Lace i Schopenhauer a priori considered the body in the physical sense to be a source of false and inferior pleasure, just as they treated sensuality more as a natural, raw side of being, and therefore worthless.
Every society tries, more or less, to organize and channel the physical pleasures of individuals. In particular, orgasmic satisfaction with the body is beyond control and thus, in a way, an escape from any cultural meaning, which is why it is often socially sanctioned. Not only in the domain of sexual energy, which in all societies is controlled and disciplined by different norms and taboos, but also, among other things, musical rhythm, along with dance and dancing, can be strongly physically experienced (e.g. the sounds of punk, heavy metal music, etc. with aggressive movements and, possibly, chemical substances that make the body "out of control"). That so-called flashy or even aggressive pleasures, as a rule, attract social discipline (moral or legal condemnation). Also, freedom is often expressed by excessive and licentious behavior and their vitality is a daily "danger" to the social order. Then the body becomes a training ground for sorting out discipline and release, and hence the (un)justified need of society to have control over all the pleasures and meanings they emit. Pleasures are projected and realized especially within free time, so in all societies, regardless of structure and class division, strategies and repressive legislative apparatus are devised to suppress them and/or keep them under control. The body was especially disciplined in the XNUMXth century, when awareness of class conflicts arose, creating a fear among the bourgeoisie of the "proletarian" body and its popular (bodily) pleasures. And as an individual body is also a political, potentially engaged body, the state apparatus began to recompose both the benefits and their meanings and practices.
In a similar way to the previous one, without the repressive aspect, we can observe society's attitude towards physical beauty, that is, ugliness, through the symbolism of the way of dressing and decorating the body and, especially, its anatomy. Everything that deviates from the "desirable" and healthy is, especially today, under social pressure to improve. Thus, the meanings of health are more social (and less physical and medical), the meanings of beauty are more socio-political and useful (and less aesthetic and artistic), etc. The body has long become a significant value in the economic life of the community and the individual, since it has to be maintained, so it is invested in it (sometimes more to make it healthy, i.e. functional, only then beautiful, but also vice versa). In modern society, the obsession with the individual body and the ways in which it is designed and repaired has become total. Capitalist ideology and mechanisms of consumerist culture instrumentalize the body, i.e. discipline it in the direction imposed by the current market (ideals regarding weight and maintenance methods, prescribed physical activities, means for hygiene and beautification, etc.).
The current aesthetics of the body concerns, above all, the repair of the subject's physical aspect, maintaining youth and perfect measurements, which forces him to "Promethean" constantly work on himself, as opposed to, say, the ancient concept of human beauty, which is the result of inseparable physical and spiritual progress. Contemporary society insists on youth and "delayed" aging, with enormous investments in the body, time and money, i.e. in its improvement or maintenance of freshness. Similar to innovating the body with the help of cosmetic and surgical treatments (artificial organs, prostheses and implants) or, on the other hand, dressing up during carnival celebrations, the body in the cyber sphere swims in an endless field of imagination and possible manipulation. New technologies enable simulation, "escape" of the body and the creation of a new identity that is not a biological given, but a field for entering selected sociocultural codes. Although the effects or traces of that body are short-lived, we increasingly become cyborgs who surf the net and with the help of new technologies acquire a new kind of sensuality, creating, in fact, a new, simulated hyperreal body. In this way, in the context of the latest genetic engineering, as he believes Epstein, "the marking and dying of the body is taking place - semiotization and devitalization" (2009). Also, the need for individual control of the body in a highly technological society is reflected, in addition to the possibility of multiplying virtual identities or its physical transformation (with the help of aesthetic surgery) and in the psychological sense that with the help of psychoactive substances existential problems are controlled, to influence the mood (fatigue, insomnia, anxiety, etc.). The body is seen as matter that can be influenced both externally and internally, although, paradoxically, these personal demands are mostly a continuation of current social ones. Just as relief is not sought in our inner resources but rather in, as it emphasizes Lipovetsky, "the action of molecular technology which, in addition, creates a habit". Thus, the subject's sovereignty over his own body is never complete, but neither is it possible.
Bonus video:
