Perversion

Perversion

INSTRUCTIONS
II

Making Up People

IAN HACKING

ere there any perverts before the latter part of the nineteenth century? According to Arnold Davidson, “The answer is NO…. Perversion was not a disease that lurked about in nature, waiting for a psychiatrist with especially acute powers of observa- ver it hiding everywhere. It was a disease created by a new (functional) understand- e.”‘ Davidson is not denying that there have been odd people at all times. He is t perversion, as a disease, and the pervert, as a diseased person, were created in the th century. Davidson’s claim, one of many now in circulation, illustrates what I call eople. ee aims: I want a better understanding of claims as curious as Davidson’s; I would if there could be a general theory of making up people, or whether each example is hat it demands its own nongeneralizable story; and I want to know how this idea people” affects our very idea of what it is to be an individual. I should warn that my ilosophical and abstract; I look more at what people might be than at what we are. hilosophical notion I call dynamic nominalism, and reflect too little on the ordi- :s of human interaction. eed more examples. I study the dullest of subjects, the official statistics of the nine- y. They range, of course, over agriculture, education, trade, births, and military here is one especially striking feature of the avalanche of numbers that begins It is obsessed with analyse morale, namely, the statistics of deviance. It is the numer- of suicide, prostitution, drunkenness, vagrancy, madness, crime, les misdrables.

e Counting generated its own subdivisions and rearrangements. We find classifications of over s’4,00 different crisscrossing motives for murder and requests that the police classify each indi- i’ vidual suicide in twenty-one different ways. I do not believe that motives of these sorts or sui- iides of these kinds existed until the practice of counting them came into being.2 ;- New slots were created in which to fit and enumerate people. Even national and provincial u censuses amazingly show that the categories into which people fall change every ten years. Social change creates new categories of people, but the counting is no mere report of developments. It elaborately, often philanthropically, creates new ways for people to be.

People spontaneously come to fit their categories. When factory inspectors in England and Wales went to the mills, they found various kinds of people there, loosely sorted according to tasks and wages. But when they had finished their reports, mill hands had precise ways in which

__l__f�iCI_ �ll�rrs_ ;�1_1�

� � � �II� _II�__�_

to work, and the owner had a clear set of concepts about how to employ workers according to. the ways in which he was obliged to classify them.

I am more familiar with the creation of kinds among the masses than with interventions that act upon individuals, though I did look into one rare kind of insanity. I claim that multiple per-< sonality as an idea and as a clinical phenomenon was invented around I875: only one or two pos- sible cases per generation had been recorded before that time, but a whole flock of them came? after. I also found that the clinical history of split personality parodies itself-the one clear case’ of classic symptoms was long recorded as two, quite distinct, human beings, each of which was- multiple. There was “the lady of MacNish,” so-called after a report in The Philosophy of Sleep,’` written by the Edinburgh physician Robert MacNish in I832, and there was one Mary R. The –

two would be reported in successive paragraphs as two different cases, although in fact Mary Reynolds was the very split-personality lady reported by MacNish. 3

Mary Reynolds died long before 1875, but she was not taken up as a case of multiple person:- ality until then. Not she but one F6lida X got the split-personality industry under way. As the-` great French psychiatrist Pierre Janet remarked at Harvard in 906, Flida’s history “was the great . argument of which the positivist psychologists made use at the time of the heroic struggles- against the dogmatism of Cousin’s school. But for Flida, it is not certain that there would be ai professorship of psychology at the College de France.”4 Janet held precisely that chair. The;{ “heroic struggles” were important for our passing conceptions of the self, and for individuality,’ because the split Fdlida was held to refute the dogmatic transcendental unity of apperception that made the self prior to all knowledge. J0

After Fdlida came a rush of multiples. The syndrome bloomed in France and later flourished in America, which is still its home. Do I mean that there were no multiples before Felida? Yes) Except for a very few earlier examples, which after 875 were reinterpreted as classic multiples there was no such syndrome for a disturbed person to display or to adopt.

I do not deny that there are other behaviors in other cultures that resemble multiple person: ality. Possession is our most familiar example-a common form of Ren died long ago, though it was curiously hardy in isolated German villages teenth century. Possession was not split personality, but if you balk at my people (in committee with their medical or moral advisers) almost cht recall that tormented souls in the past have often been said to have in s possessed, to have been seeking attention, exorcism, and tranquility.

I should give one all-too-tidy example of how a new person can be n quote from Janet, whom I find the most open and honorable of the psych to Lucie, who had the once-fashionable but now-forgotten habit of aut replies to Janet in writing without her normal self’s awareness:

Janet. Do you understand me? Lucie (writes). No.

J But to reply you must understand me! L. Oh yes, absolutely. J. Then what are you doing? L. Don’t know. . It is certain that someone is understanding me. L. Yes. j. Who is that?

* I C �I _C�I� _

I62 IAN HACKING

~~–; MAKING UP PEOPLE 16’3

eT L.. Somebody besides Lucie.. ‘i j Aha! Another person. Would you like to give her a name?

.;, iYes. It would be far easier that way. ,.? Oh well. If you want: Adrienne.

~ -:..Then, Adrienne, do you understand me?

L.q Yes. 5

:If ou think this is what people used to do in the bad old days, consider poor Charles, who

as given a whole page of Time magazine on October z25, 982 (p. 70). He was picked up wan- dering aimlessly and was placed in the care of Dr. Malcolm Graham of Daytona Beach, who in

turn consulted with Dr. William Rothstein, a notable student of multiple personality at the Uni-

ersity Hospital in Columbia, South Carolina. Here is what is said to have happened:

fer listening to a tape recording made in June of the character Mark, Graham became convinced he was

e’aiing with a multiple personality. Graham began consulting with Rothstein, who recommended hypno- ‘i Under the spell, Eric began calling his characters. Most of the personalities have been purged,

iAlthough there are three or four being treated, officials say. It was the real personality that signed a consent form that allowed Graham to comment on the case.6

i-Hypnosis elicited Charles, Eric, Mark, and some twenty-four other personalities. When I read of

isuch present-day manipulations of character, I pine a little for Mollie Fancher, who gloried in

Ihe personalities of Sunbeam, Idol, Rosebud, Pearl, and Ruby. She became somewhat split after

“. being dragged a mile by a horse car. She was not regarded as especially deranged, nor in much

!need of “cure.” She was much loved by her friends, who memorialized her in 1894 in a book with

.- the title Mollie Fancher, The Brooklyn Enigma: An Authentic Statement of Facts in the Life of Mol-

lJieJ Fancher, The Psychological Marvel ofthe Nineteenth Century.7 The idea of making up people

has, I said, become quite widespread. The Making ofthe Modern Homosexual is a good example;

-” Making” in this title is close to my “making up.”8 The contributors by and large accept that the

homosexual and the heterosexual as kinds of persons (as ways to be persons, or as conditions of

/:personhood) came into being only toward the end of the nineteenth century. There has been

plenty of same-sex activity in all ages, but not, Making argues, same-sex people and different-sex

people. I do not wish to enter the complexities of that idea, but will quote a typical passage from

.this anthology to show what is intended: “One difficulty in transcending the theme of gender

-inversion as the basis of the specialized homosexual identity was the rather late historical devel-

:opment of more precise conceptions of components of sexual identity. [fn:] It is not suggested

that these components are ‘real’ entities, which awaited scientific ‘discovery.’ However once the

distinctions were made, new realities effectively came into being.” 9

– Note how the language here resembles my opening quotation: “not a disease… in nature,

waiting for … observation to discover it” versus “not … ‘real’ entities, which awaited scientific -.’discovery.”‘ Moreover, this author too suggests that “once the distinctions were made, new real-

ities effectively came into being.”

i This theme, the homosexual as a kind of person, is often traced to a paper by Mary MacIn-

tosh, “The Homosexual Role,” which she published in 968 in Social Problems.’o That journal was much devoted to “labeling theory,” which asserts that social reality is conditioned, stabilized,

or even created by the labels we apply to people, actions, and communities. Already in 1963,

‘”A Note on the Uses of Official Statistics” in the same journal anticipated my own inferences

_ � �I�I�

I6’4 IAN HACKING

about counting.” But there is a currently more fashionable source of the idea of making up people, namely, Michel Foucault, to whom both Davidson and I are indebted. A quotation fror

Foucault provides the epigraph-following one from Nietzsche-for The Making f the Modern

Homosexual; and although its authors cite some 450 sources, they refer to Foucault more than

anyone else. Since I shall be primarily concerned with labeling, let me state at once that for all

his famous fascination with discourse, naming is only one element in what Foucault calls the

“constitution of subjects” (in context a pun, but in one sense the making up of the subject): “We

should try to discover how it is that subjects are gradually, progressively, really and materially con-

stituted through a multiplicity of organisms, forces, energies, materials, desires, thoughts, etc.”12 i

Since so many of us have been influenced by Foucault, our choice of topic and time may be

biased. My examples dwell in the nineteenth century and are obsessed with deviation and con

trol. Thus, among the questions on a complete agenda, we should include these two: Is making

up people intimately linked to control? Is making up people itself of recent origin? The answer-

to both questions might conceivably be yes. We may be observing a particular medico-forensic_:

political language of individual and social control. I.ikewise, the sheer proliferation of labels in

that domain during the nineteenth century may have engendered vastly more kinds of people

than the world had ever known before.

Partly in order to distance myself for a moment from issues of repression, and partly for

intrinsic interest, I would like to abstract from my examples. If there were some truth in the

descriptions I and others have furnished, then making up people would bear on one of the great

traditional questions of philosophy, namely, the debate between nominalists and realists. 13 The-:

author I quoted who rejects the idea that the components of the homosexual identity are real-

entities, has taken a time-worn nominalist suggestion and made it interesting by the thought:

that “once the distinctions were made, new realities effectively came into being.” – ;-

You will recall that a traditional nominalist says that stars (or algae, or justice) have nothing

in common except our names (“stars,” “algae,” “justice”). The traditional realist in contrast finds-

it amazing that the world could so kindly sort itself into our categories. He protests that there are

definite sorts of objects in it, at least stars and algae, which we have painstakingly come to recog—

nize and classify correctly. The robust realist does not have to argue very hard that people also

come sorted. Some are thick, some thin, some dead, some alive. It may be a fact about human

beings that we notice who is fat and who is dead, but the fact itself that some of our fellows are:..

fat and others are dead has nothing to do with our schemes of classification.

The realist continues: consumption was not only a sickness but also a moral failing, caused.

by defects of character. That is an important nineteenth-century social fact about TB. We dis>-

covered in due course, however, that the disease is transmitted by bacilli that divide very slowly

and that we can kill. It is a fact about us that we were first moralistic and later made this discov-:

ery, but it is a brute fact about tuberculosis that it is a specific disease transmitted by microbes.

The nominalist is left rather weakly contending that even though a particular kind of person, the

consumptive, may have been an artifact of the nineteenth century, the disease itself is an entity

in its own right, independently of how we classify: ‘

It would be foolhardy, in this context, to have an opinion about one of the more stable

human dichotomies, male and female. But very roughly, the robust realist will agree that there

may be what really are physiological borderline cases, once called “hermaphrodites.” The exis:

tence of vague boundaries is normal: most of us are neither tall nor short, fat nor thin. Sexual

physiology is unusually abrupt in its divisions. The realist will take the occasional compulsive .: .?

__C________I___I_____·__l_____l___

MAKING UP PEOPLE I65

~2s-nation with transvestitism, or horror about hermaphrodites (so well described by Stephen ~eenblatt elsewhere), as human (nominalist) resistance to nature’s putative aberrations. Like-

wthe realist will assert that even though our attitudes to gender are almost entirely nonobjec- ge and culturally ordained, gender itself is a real distinction.

I do not know if there were thoroughgoing, consistent, hardline nominalists who held that ~eryT classification is of our own making. I might pick that great British nominalist, Hobbes,

it of context: “How can any man imagine that the names of things were imposed by their tres? ” 14 Or I might pick Nelson Goodman. 15

Let me take even the vibrant Hobbes, Goodman, and their scholastic predecessors as pale iflections of a perhaps nonexistent static nominalist, who thinks that all categories, classes, and :oinomies are given by human beings rather than by nature and that these categories are essen-

~siy fixed throughout the several eras of humankind. I believe that static nominalism is doubly ,/ong: I think that many categories come from nature, not from the human mind, and I think ur categories are not static. A different kind of nominalism-I call it dynamic nominalism-

;.racts my realist self, spurred on by heories about the making of the homosexual and the het- ~rosexual as kinds of persons or by my observations about official statistics. The claim of

yn~ar-nic nominalism is not that there was a kind of person who came increasingly to be recog- :zed by bureaucrats or by students of human nature but rather that a kind of person came into being at the same time as the kind itself was being invented. In some cases, that is, our classifica- t~ons and our classes conspire to emerge hand in hand, each egging the other on.

-Take four categories: horse, planet, glove, and multiple personality. It would be preposterous t suggest that the only thing horses have in common is that we call them horses. We may draw

e-boundaries to admit or to exclude Shetland ponies, but the similarities and differences are al enough. The planets furnish one of T. S. Kuhn’s examples of conceptual change. 16 Arguably

he heavens looked different after we grouped Earth with the other planets and excluded the ivoon and Sun, but I am sure that acute thinkers had discovered a real difference. I hold (most of the time) that strict nominalism is unintelligible for horses and the planets. How could horses and planets be so obedient to our minds? Gloves are something else: we manufacture them. I

:know not which came first, the thought or the mitten, but they have evolved hand in hand. That he concept “glove” fits gloves so well is no surprise; we made them that way. My claim about

making up people is that in a few interesting respects multiple personalities (and much else) are more like gloves than like horses. The category and the people in it emerged hand in hand. 2: How might a dynamic nominalism affect the concept of the individual person? One answer ias to do with possibility. Who we are is not only what we did, do, and will do but also what we

Fight have done and. may do. Making up people changes the space of possibilities for person- ghood. Even the dead are more than their deeds, for we make sense of a finished life only within

ts sphere of former possibilities. But our possibilities, although inexhaustible, are also bounded. }f the nominalist thesis about sexuality was correct, it simply wasn’t possible to be a heterosexual

[kind of person before the nineteenth century, for that kind of person was not there to choose. ;’What could that mean? What could it mean in general to say that possible ways to be a person

‘an from time to time come into being or disappear? Such queries force us to be careful about Yjthe idea of possibility itself.

:: -We have a folk picture of the gradations of possibility. Some things, for example, are easy to do, some hard, and some plain impossible. What is impossible for one person is possible for

other. At the limit we have the statement: “With men it is impossible, but not with God: for

“s”1�99—3–·-·—–·—�

I66 IAN HACKING

with God, all things are possible” (Mark Io: 27). (Christ had been saying that it is easier fora camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heavent) Degrees of possibility are degrees in the ability of some agent to do or make something The- more ability, the more possibility, and omnipotence makes anything possible. At that point i: logicians have stumbled, worrying about what were once called “the eternal truths” and are now called “logical necessities.” Even God cannot make a five-sided square, or so mathematicians say except for a few such eminent dissenters as Descartes. Often this limitation on omnipotence is explained linguistically, being said to reflect our unwillingness to call anything a five-sided: square.

There is something more interesting that God can’t do. Suppose that Arnold Davidson,, my opening quotation about perversion, is literally correct. Then it was not possible for God tod make George Washington a pervert. God could have delayed Washington’s birth by over a ce tury, but would that have been the same man? God could have moved the medical discouri back one hundred odd years. But God could not have simply made him a pervert the way i-i could have made him freckled or had him captured and hung for treachery. This may seem all the more surprising since Washington was but eight years older than the Marquis de Sade-and Krafft-Ebing has sadomasochism among the four chief categories of perversion. But it follows from Davidson’s doctrine that de Sade was not afflicted by the disease of perversion, nor even the_ disease of sadomasochism either. X

Such strange claims are more trivial than they seem; they result from a contrast between people and things. Except when we interfere, what things are doing, and indeed what camels arei doing, does not depend on how we describe them. But some of the things that we ourselves do are intimately connected to our descriptions. Many philosophers follow Elizabeth Anscombe’ and say that intentional human actions must be “actions under a description.” 17 This is not mere: lingualism, for descriptions are embedded in our practices and lives. But if a description is not there, then intentional actions under that description cannot be there either: that, apparently, is-:i a fact of logic.

Elaborating on this difference between people and things: what camels, mountains, and microbes are doing does not depend on our words. What happens to tuberculosis bacilli de- pends on whether or not we poison them with BCG vaccine, but it does not depend upon how0 we describe them. Of course we poison them with a certain vaccine in part because we describe ‘ them in certain ways, but it is the vaccine that kills, not our words. Human action is more closely linked to human description than bacterial action is. A century ago I would have said. that consumption is caused by bad air and sent the patient to the Alps. Today, I may say that TB is caused by microbes and prescribe a two-year course of injections. But what is happening to the microbes and the patient is entirely independent of my correct or incorrect description, even!- though it is not independent of the medication prescribed. The microbes’ possibilities are delim5 ited by nature, not by words. What is curious about human action is that by and large what I arnij deliberately doing depends on the possibilities of description. To repeat, this is a tautologica~ inference from what is now a philosopher’s commonplace, that all intentional acts are acts unde-‘ a description. Hence if new modes of description come into being, new possibilities for actionfl come into being in consequence. -‘I

Let us now add an example to our repertoire; let it have nothing to do with deviancy, let itbe rich in connotations of human practices, and let it help furnish the end of a spectrum of makingA up people opposite from the multiple personality. I take it from Jean-Paul Sartre, partly for the-

I

�� I_ 1_1�

MAKING UP PEOPLE

fame of his description, partly for its excellence as description, partly because :emium philosopher of choice, and partly because recalling Sartre will recall an eturns me to my origin. Let us first look at Sartre’s magnificent humdrum exam- ng us might have chosen to be a waiter or waitress and several have been one for a en might have chosen to be something more specific, a Parisian garfon de caf, irtre writes in his immortal discussion of bad faith: “His movement is quick and too precise, a little too rapid. He comes toward the patrons with a step a little too

is forward a little too eagerly, his eyes express an interest too solicitous for the stomer.” 8 Ps-chiatrists and medical people in general try to be extremely specific but no description of the several classical kinds of split personality is as precise (or ) as this. Imagine for a moment that we are reading not the words of a philoso- :s his books in cafes but those of a doctor who writes them in a clinic. Has the chance of escaping treatment by experts? Was Sartre knowing or merely antici- concluded this very paragraph with the words: “There are indeed many precau-

,n a man in what he is, as if we lived in perpetual fear that he might escape from ht break away and suddenly elude his condition.” That is a good reminder of g: possibility, project, and prison are one of a piece. hero chose to be a waiter. Evidently that was not a possible choice in other places, lere are servile people in most societies, and servants in many, but a waiter is ific, and a garon de cafe more specific. Sartre remarks that the waiter is doing rent when he pretends to play at being a sailor or a diplomat than when he plays r in order to be a waiter. I think that in most parts of, let us say. Saskatchewn (or

nnvwhere). w4rr n i-,rin rh —- 1 u . . . -.n . I avv ..s ,…_Xws, c; teastot FX4/lilb at U~~lilS a griU7 ad c-aye woula mass tne mark rs .. l–/ …… /, …… ·~~ir~r F~.~). . u,..%fj ,, gI)uflC, C -ajr would miss mhe mark as were playing at being a diplomat while passing over the french fries. As with y in which it is possible to be a person, it is possible to be a garfon de caft only at n a certain place, in a certain social setting. The feudal serf putting food on my io more choose to be a garfon de cafe’ than he can choose to be lord of the manor. bility is evidently different in kind. chnical impossibility. Serfs may once have dreamed of travel to the moon; cer- red betters wrote or read adventures of moon travel. But moon travel was impos- whereas it is not quite impossible for today’s young waiter. One young waiter rs, be serving steaks in a satellite. Sartre is at pains to say that even technical lim- iean that you have fewer possibilities. For every person, in every era, the world is )ssibilities. “Of course,” Sartre writes, “a contemporary of Duns Scotus is igno- f the automobile or the aeroplane…. For the one who has no relation of any ects and the techniques that refer to them, there is a kind of absolute, unthink- )herable nothingness. Such a nothing can in no way limit the For-itself that is t cannot be apprehended as a lack, no matter how we consider it.” Passing to a e, he continues, “The feudal world offered to the vassal lord of Raymond VI ies of choice;’we do not possess more.”19

athinkable and undecipherable nothingness” is a great phrase. That is exactly Itiple personality, or being a garfon de cafe, was to Raymond’s vassal. Many of th, be neither a Parisian waiter nor a split, but both are thinkable, decipherable It would be possible for God to have made you one or the other or both, leav-

e world more or less intact. That means, to me, that the outer reaches of your

�� ·I�_ �

I68 IAN HACKING

space as an individual are essentially different from what they would have been had these poss, bilities not come into being.

Thus the idea of making up people is enriched; it applies not to the unfortunate elect but tt’ all of us. It is not just the making up of people of a kind that did not exist before: not only are the split and the waiter made up, but each of us is made up. We are not only what we are, but what,

we might have been, and the possibilities for what we might have been are transformed. Hence anyone who thinks about the individual, the person, must reflect on this strange ideai

of making up people. Do my stories tell a uniform tale? Manifestly not. The multiple personal ity, the homosexual or heterosexual person, and the waiter form one spectrum among many that may color our perception here. ,

Suppose there is some truth in the labeling theory of the modern homosexual. It cannot bei the whole truth, and this for several reasons, including one that is future-directed and one that is past-directed. The future-directed fact is that after the institutionalization of the ho person in law and official morality, the people involved had a life of their own, individ collectively. As gay liberation has amply proved, that life was no simple product of the

The past-directed fact is that the labeling did not occur in a social vacuum, in which those( identified as homosexual people passively accepted the format. There was a complex social life that is only now revealing itself in the annals of academic social history. It is quite clear that the’)~ internal life of innumerable clubs and associations interacted with the medico-forensic-journal-JI istic labeling. At the risk of giving offense, I suggest that the quickest way to see the contrastj between making up homosexuals and making up multiple personalities is to try to imagine split- personality bars. Splits, insofar as they are declared, are under care, and the syndrome, the form of behavior, is orchestrated by a team of experts. Whatever the medico-forensic experts tried to do with their categories, the homosexual person became autonomous of the labeling, but the-:!’ split is not.

The garfon de cafi is at the opposite extreme. There is of course a social history of waiters in Paris. Some of this will be as anecdotal as the fact that croissants originated in the caf6s of Vienna – after the Turkish siege was lifted in 683: the pastries in the shape of a crescent were a mockery of Islam. Other parts of the story will be structurally connected with numerous French institu- ‘ tions. But the class of waiters is autonomous of any act of labeling. At most the name garfon de ‘ cafe’ can continue to ensure both the inferior position of the waiter and the fact that he is male. Sartre’s precise description does not fit thefille de salle; that is a different role.

I do not believe there is a.general story to be told about making up people. Each category has its own history. If we wish to present a partial framework in which to describe such events, we might think of two vectors. One is the vector of labeling from above, from a community of experts who create a “reality” that some people make their own. Different from this is the vector of the autonomous behavior of the person so labeled, which presses from below, creating a real- ity every expert must face. The second vector is negligible for the split but powerful for the homosexual person. People who write about the history of homosexuality seem to disagree about the relative importance of the two vectors. My scheme at best highlights what the dispute is about. It provides no answers.

The scheme is also too narrow. I began by mentioning my own dusty studies in official statis- tics and asserted that these also, in a less melodramatic way, contribute to making up people. There is a story to tell here, even about Parisian waiters, who surface in the official statistics of

�

MAKING UP PEOPLE i69

prisingly late, in 88I. However, I shall conclude with yet another way of making up

nd human acts, one of notorious interest to the existentialist culture of a couple of gen- past. I mean suicide, the option that Sartre always left open to the For-itself. Suicide

ke a timeless option. It is not. Indeed it might be better described as a French obsession. e have been cultures, including some in recent European history, that knew no suicide.

that there were no suicides in Venice when it was the noblest city of Europe. But can I propose that suicide is a concept that has been made up? Oddly, that is exactly what is he deeply influential Esquirol in his 1823 medical-encyclopedia article on suicide.20 He ly asserts that the very word was devised by his predecessor Sauvages. What is true is :ide was made the property of medics only at the beginning of the nineteenth century, ajor fight it was too.21 It was generally allowed that there was the noble suicide, the sui- onor or of state, but all the rest had to be regarded as part of the new medicine of insan- nid-century it would be contended that there was no case of suicide that was not

by symptoms of insanity. 22

literature concerns the doctors and their patients. It exactly parallels a statistical story. suggests we think in terms of “two poles of development linked together by a whole

f intermediary relations.” 23 One pole centers on the individual as a speaking, working, ng entity he calls an “anatomo-politics of the human body.” The second pole, “focused pecies body,” serves as the “basis of the biological processes: propagation, births, and ‘, the level of health, life expectancy and longevity.” He calls this polarity a “biopolitics )pulation.” Suicide aptly illustrates patterns of connection between both poles. The men comment on the bodies and their past, which led to self-destruction; the statisti- .nt and classify the bodies. Every fact about the suicide becomes fascinating. The statis- ompose forms to be completed by doctors and police, recording everything from the

imne of death to the objects found in the pockets of the corpse. The various ways of killing one- selfare abruptly characterized and become symbols of national character. The French favor car- bon monoxide and drowning; the English hang or shoot themselves. ! By the end of the nineteenth century there was so much information about French suicides

that Durkheim could use suicide to measure social pathology. Earlier, a rapid increase in the rate

ofsuicide in all European countries had caused great concern. More recently authors have sug- gested that the growth may have been largely apparent, a consequence of improved systems of

}reporting.24 It was thought that there were more suicides because more care was taken to report them. But such a remark is unwittingly ambiguous: reporting brought about more suicides. I do

-“not refer to suicide epidemics that follow a sensational case, like that of von Kleist, who shot his ,lover and then himself on the Wannsee in I8iI-an event vigorously reported in every European capital. I mean instead that the systems of reporting positively created an entire ethos of suicide, fight down to the suicide note, an art form that previously was virtually unknown apart from the rare noble suicide of state. Suicide has of course attracted attention in all times and has invited such distinguished essayists as Cicero and Hume. But the distinctively European and American patern of suicide is a historical artifact. Even the unmaking of people has been made up. J Naturally my kinds of making up people are far from exhaustive. Individuals serve as role io~dels and sometimes thereby create new roles. We have only to think of James Clifford’s “On

5thnographic Self-Fashioning: Conrad and Malinowski.” Malinowski’s book largely created the Participant-observer cultural-relativist ethnographer, even if Malinowski himself did not truly

Ii,,

__ � 1�1

170 IAN HACKING

conform to that role in the field. He did something more important-he made up

scholar. The advertising industry relies on our susceptibilities to role models and

engaged in trying to make up people. But here nominalism, even of a dynamic kind, i

key. Often we have no name for the very role a model entices us to adopt.

Dynamic nominalism remains an intriguing doctrine, arguing that numerous

human beings and human acts come into being hand in hand with our invention of

gories labeling them. It is for me the only intelligible species of nominalism, the only

can even gesture at an account of how common names and the named could so

together. It is of more human interest than the arid and scholastic forms of nominalisr

it contends that our spheres of possibility, and hence our selves, are to some extent m;

our naming and what that entails. But let us not be overly optimistic about the

dynamic nominalism. It has the merit of bypassing abstract handwaving and invitin

serious philosophy, namely, to examine the intricate origin of our ideas of multiple p

or of suicide. It is, we might say, putting some flesh on that wizened figure, John Lo

wrote about the origin of ideas while introspecting at his desk. But just because it in,

examine the intricacies of real life, it has little chance of being a general philosophic

Although we may find it useful to arrange influences according to Foucault’s poles an

tots, such metaphors are mere suggestions of what to look for next. I see no reason t

that we shall ever tell two identical stories of two different instances of making up peo

NOTES i. Arnold Davidson, “Closing Up the Corpses,” in G. Boulos, ed., Meaning and Method (Cambridge

2. Ian Hacking, “Biopower and the Avalanche of Printed Numbers,” Humanities in Society, 5 (19

“The Autonomy of Statistical Law,” in N. Rescher, ed., Scientific Explanation and Understanding (Pittst

pp. 3-20; “How Should We Do the History of Statistics?” leIC, 8 (198I), 15-26. 3. Ian Hacking, “The Invention of Split Personalities,” in Human Knowledge and SocialKnowledge,

et al., eds (Dorohecht, i986), pp. 63-85. 4. Pierre Janet, The Major Symptoms ofHysteria (London, 1906), p. 7

8.

5. Pierre Janet, “Les Actes inconscients et le dedoublement de la personnalit6 pendant le somnambu

que,” Revue Philosophique, 22 (I886), 581. 6. The State, Columbia, S.C., October 4, 982, p. 3A. I apologize for using a newspaper report, but the doctors –

involved created this story for the papers and did not reply to my letters requesting more information. –

7. Abram H. Dailey, Mollie Fancher, the Brooklyn Enigma (Brooklyn, i894).

8. K. Plummer, ed., The Making ofthe Modern Homosexual (London, I98I).

9. John Marshall, “Pansies, Perverts and Macho Men: Changing Conceptions of the Modern Homosexual,” in

Plummer, ed., pp. 150, 249, n. 6. Io. Reprinted in Plummer, ed., pp. 30-43, with postscript; originally published in Social Problems, I6 (i968),:4

i82-92.

it. John I. Kituse and Aaron V. Cewrel, “A Note on the Uses of Official Statistics,” Social Problems, II (1963)

I31-39 Iz. Michel Foucault, Power/Knowledge, ed. C. Gordon (London and New York, i980), p. 97. The translation of

this passage is by Alessandro Fontana and Pasquale Pasquino. 13. After the 1983 conference at which this paper was delivered, Bert Hansen (who has helped me a number f

times with this paper) remarked that the relation of the nominalist/realisr dispute to homosexuality is used by JohM?

Boswell, “Towards the Long View: Revolutions, Universal and Sexual Categories,” Salmagundi, 58-59 (I982-83), 89-14′

14. Thomas Hobbes, Elements ofPhilosophy, II, 4. I5. Trendy, self-styled modern nominalists might refer to his Ways oforldmaking (Indianapolis, Ind., 1978), but r

the real hard line is in his Fact, Fiction, and Forecast (Cambridge, Mass., 1955)-a line so hard that few philosopheis

who write about the “new riddle of induction” of that book appear even to see the point. Goodman is saying that the

only reason to project the hypothesis that all emeralds are green rather than blue-the latter implying that those-

emeralds, which are in the future examined for the first time, will prove to be blue-is that the word “green I

entrenched, i.e., it is a word and a classification that we have been using. Where the inductive skeptic Hume allowed.<

that there is a real quality, greenness, that we project out of habit, for Goodman there is only our practice of using thie –

word “green” (Fact, chap. 4). 0{

I�_

U

MAKING UP PEOPLE I7J

n, The Structure ofScientific Revolutions (Chicago, 962), p. 115.

Anscombe, Intention (Oxford, I957). Sartre, Being and Nothingness, trans. Hazel E. Barnes (London, 1957), p. 59-

22.

ol, “Suicide,” Dictionnaire des sciences medicales (Paris, 1823), LIII, 213.

ng, “Suicide au XIX’ siecle,” in A. Fagot, ed., Midicine etprobabilit’s (Paris, 982), pp. 65-86.

irdin, Du suicide consideri comme maladie (Batignolles, I845), p. I9. The first sentence of this book

ers: Le suicide est une monomanie. oucault, The History of Sexuality, trans. Robert Hurley (New York, I978), p. I39. ;statement of this idea is in Jack D. Douglas, The Social Meanings of Suicide (Princeton, N.J., I967),

FI( i–· .–·r’ 5··�,:. i ·-�

�:� T�r;· i·· ·s i i�·

___1____1______1____�__

Blog ArchiveCopyright © 2019 HomeworkMarket.com Read More
Applied SciencesArchitecture and DesignBiologyBusiness & FinanceChemistryComputer ScienceGeographyGeologyEducationEngineeringEnglishEnvironmental scienceSpanishGovernmentHistoryHuman Resource ManagementInformation SystemsLawLiteratureMathematicsNursingPhysicsPolitical SciencePsychologyReadingScienceSocial Science