Photo by Crystal (Oregon Country Fair July 2008)
Human Tree by Micose
As quoted in Graham Parkes' Composing the Soul, 1996
III. In Class Excerpt
Twice Dead: Organ Transplants and the Reinvention of Death
Margaret Lock (2002)
“Shokubutsu ningen (a plant person), a translation of persistent vegetative state. The text says, ‘She is living…even though she no longer has any thought, sight, hearing, nor the ability to work. So, it’s like being a plant; even though plants are living, I don’t suppose they can reason’”
IV. Analysis
Introduction
For this particular analysis I would like to focus on how words are transcribed into analogies of understanding, especially when dealing with concepts of the human body. With this focus, I am also interested in how language used to describe health are then inscribed on other non-human life forms, in particular plants. The outside examples and in class excerpt above are included more as an introduction into this topic, whereas below I will include other outside findings as well as pulling from not only Margaret Lock’s Twice Dead but also Emily Martin’s Flexible Bodies.
Discussion
As a child entering first grade, I remember this poem and movement exercise my teacher had the class participate in. As we stretched our hands upwards we chanted that we were trees reaching for the sun and when touching our toes we were roots reaching into the ground. While the use of poems during class activities might have been for the sole purpose of memorization and movement for formalization techniques, this analogy of the human body as a tree infiltrated my young mind. Also there was a level mimicking, in which other life forms or even inanimate objects are easily humanized by children. The photo and art piece I chose to include above are for the visual appeal: the form of a tree also takes on the form of human life. This fits nicely with Nietzsche’s analogy of being human (both body and soul) as to that of being a plant, with branches and roots. His analogy of course was nothing new, as the tree throughout ancient cultures signified life (i.e. Celtic Tree of Life). Nietzsche perhaps took it a step further in rendering individual spiritual experiences to that of the experience of a plant growing.
This comparison between humans and plants is prevalent in layman medical dialogue we take for granted like “persistent vegetative state.” Where the human who has lost particular brain function to be likened to a vegetable, which is both alive and dead by being no longer a part of the plant life cycle, but still not considered fully dead until rotten. The text included above is the English translation of the text next to a drawing Lock included from Tokyo, in which a woman is attached to a ventilator and feeding tube with a tree looming behind her. The woman is a shokubutsu ningen, or plant person, because even though she is alive, she has lost the brain function to reason. Thus she is explained as being closer to plant life than to human life. While, Nietzsche’s analogies were more ethereal, the plant language used in medical commentary is much more foreboding. Instead of the plant being humanized, the human is “planticized.”
I admit my above word creation is rather obtuse and luckily this is not the direction I am going with this analysis. Before I get further into the humanizing aspect, it is important to look at how the human body is transcribed into many innovative analogies. Martin’s discussion of language used in pre immunology and post immunology conceptions uncovers this discourse. In regards to the body compared to a machine or castle, Martin states “The cells of the body are ‘disciplines,’ ‘like the City during working hours’; the organs and limbs of the body are nourished by the body’s blood just as the workers in a busy factory depend on the surrounding community for their nourishment” (p. 29). Two images that I found that visually replicate Martin's discussion are below:
1. Ma'a'seh Toviya (1701)
2. Mechanical Anatomy
Martin examines closely "changing sensibilities about the body" and the transition from passive bodies to active bodies. In particular she looks out how the active body perception resound with ideas "that the various parts of the immune response form a single, interconnected system" (p. 37). If the body is a system, then using words like "trained," "mobilized" and "resist" make sense. However, at the end of Part 2, Martin also starts to examine how such a shift in perceptions might also be "in connection with some major shift in the social order" (p. 40). I will not make any argument either way on this latter suggestion by Martin, instead I would like to preview medical language that is transcribed onto plants. Interestingly, the concepts I am speaking of are particular words that Martin examines like "immune system" and "resistance" in conjuncture with "disease" and "death."
First I will began with the a plant life-cycle chart:
This particular chart is taken from the Botanic Garden Trust website in explanation of the life cycle of woodland plants. Notice how words like juvenile, adult and death are all included in the life cycle of a plant. Of course I don't mean to argue against the use of these words, but ponder on how such words translate into the reality of a plant versus a human. How does a plant die? Or a better question, how can a loaded word like death be used to describe a life form that holds no equivalent to animal consciousness (some might disagree)? In looking back at the chosen excerpt from Lock, where the woman in the "vegetative" state or "brain-dead" state is likened to a plant: does this mean that a plant can be considered in an ever "brain-dead" state? Perhaps I am being nit picky here, but I find it fascinating how analogies are thrown out half hazard when words being used are in themselves argued over by public, scholar and medical personnel alike.
There are several articles that have titles linking plants to concepts of immunity. For example in the journal Nature, an article titled The Plant Immune System (2006) examines how a plant uses its immune system to fight off infection. While the title is quite simple, the article itself is fully of meaty scientific language that I cannot translate. However, I found it interesting that the terms I did understand were essentially terms that are used to discuss how humans "fight" disease. Another article from Cornell News titled Plant Defense Gene Identified (2003) states in regards to one Dr. Kessog "He adds that an attack by a plant pathogen "marks the start of a war. If the plant can recognize the pathogen and activate its defense arsenal in time, the plant usually wins. But if the pathogen circumvents detection or the defenses themselves, the plant is in trouble. The more we learn about plant immune systems, the better are the chances we can help important crop plants win their war -- without the collateral damage from chemical pesticides."
This statement is a perfect example of language used for human immunity response being transcribed onto plants. I suggest that this is problematic in two ways. First, in that the humanizing of plants in this way puts limitations on enhancing perspectives of uniqueness between life forms. Secondly, as Martin begins to discuss, the very language used to describe the immune system, as in war analogies, is problematic in itself.
Conclusion
In looking back at ancient concepts of the Tree of Life or even Nietzsche's analogies of the soul to the growth of plants, these seem natural human techniques of mimicking and the ever search for connection. It also makes sense that as society changes, conceptualizations of how the body functions might reflect those changes. Like, industry in the factory to that of vital organ communications. In this analysis I have not tried to answer why analogies of human immunology are transcribed onto plants. Instead, I have been simply providing examples in curiosity of how this might affect changing perceptions of not only the human body, but also to that of plants. On a closing thought, I might deviate to Mauss and his discussion of magical performances or rites.
"The collecting together of this kind of committed group provides a mental atmosphere were erroneous perceptions may flourish and illusions spread like wildfire; miracles occur in this milieu as a matter of course. The member of such communities are experimenters, who have accumulated a myriad opportunities for error. They are in a state of perpetual aberration, where at any moment a chance even will be proclaimed law, a coincidence a rule" (Practical Magic p. 163).
Has innovative language used to describe functions of life forms created restrictions rather than broadening understanding? In other words, does language create an illusion of knowledge, when really the translation does not hold?
