Have you ever had a patient who entered treatment with the chief complaint, “I have been disallowed ownership over my own body, which has put me in a perpetual state of despair, fragmentation, and helplessness”? Doubtful. Thus far, there is no vocabulary in psychoanalysis, human development scholarship, or even society at large which captures the impacts of a nation increasingly determined to usurp and eclipse the relationships with the bodies of the most vulnerable constituents. Like with any clinical issue or sociocultural malady, we cannot begin to affect change unless we build integrated constructs which describe the comprehensive problem, its consequences on the psyches and bodies of those in greatest precarity (Butler, 2004), and courageously travel to all of the sources of impact. Target group members with intersectional identities, such as women and children of color and low SES BIPOC persons, for example, are in greatest peril with regard to our socio-political machinery legislating choicelessness. This ethos of power, domination, and hijacking of the basic human rights of safety and bodily agency have seeped and steeped into the collective psyche-soma fabric. Arguably our very most personal relationship, the one with our own bodies, is being coerced and controlled by the powers that be. These systematized forces trickle into every nook and cranny of being. Body terrorism (Taylor, 2021) has become omnipresent.
Bodily autonomy is a fundamental human right. It refers to the radical but simple notion that individuals ought to freely control what does and does not happen to our bodies, and that we all should have equal power, agency, and dignity in making fundamental choices about our corporeal beings, including about sex; access to contraception and abortion; marriage; how, if and when we are touched; and being able to safely participate in elements of society without undue fear that we will be shunned, attacked or murdered. As innovation in areas such as technology and medicine rapidly expand in our society, the inverse is happening with regard to bodily autonomy: our citizens with intersectional, marginalized identities experience exponential diminishment and expropriation of their freedom to make decisions about their bodies. Chronic and acute suffering, helplessness, despair, suicidality, self-alienation, isolation, fear, and self-hatred comprise a small subset of the consequences.
Here I will free associate on some of the points of impact. A sexually abused pregnant girl cannot seek proper support because contraception and abortion are illegal in her home state. An undocumented woman working in the food industry feels no other option but to tolerate sexual harassment in the form of aggressive verbal comments and her body parts being grabbed by fellow workers. A boy is bullied at school because he dresses differently than the others. A person of color cannot pick up a crucial ingredient at the corner store after dark, or even before dark, without fear of being targeted by a fellow citizen or law enforcement. A Black person cannot draw attention to his goings on in his own home for risk that a neighbor could call the police. Disabled-bodied persons are erased by society at large by means of averted eyes and public structures which are inaccessible to them. A stolen image of a naked body goes viral. A person says no to sex, but their statement is unheeded.
Bodily autonomy can be actively fostered at each and every stage of child development.
Through this lens, we have an opportunity with our child patients and their families to nurture a cohesive and empowered bodily relationship, one which prepares children to confidently take ownership of themselves, encourages them to learn boundaries and make informed choices, and to develop robust constructs of personal safety. When I read into most any of Winnicott’s papers, I discern his advocacy of children’s bodily autonomy. As example, the capacity for the infant to be alone in the presence of the caregiver hinges on sensitively and unobtrusively attuned facilitation of bodily safety and cohesiveness (Winnicott, 1958). In The Use of An Object (1969), Winnicott emphasizes that only through the survived destruction of the caregiver may children learn that their bodies and minds may safely and autonomously co-exist and thrive.
Many other psychoanalytic contributors, such as Fairbairn, Ainsworth, Bowlby, and Waddell speak to the facilitation of secure autonomy. In organizing around the healing, growth, and mental health needs of children, I propose that we reify existent theories of child development in response to the sociocultural circumstances which implore us to better prepare them for a society that would make them believe bodily freedom, self-possession, and choice are not the rights of all.
Works Cited
Butler, J. (2004). Precarious life: The powers of mourning and violence. London: Verso.
Taylor, S.R. (2021). The body is not an apology. Oakland: Barrett-Koehler Publishers.
Winnicott, D. W. (1958). The capacity to be alone. The International Journal of Psychoanalysis, 39, 416–420.
Winnicott, D. W. (1969). The use of an object. The International Journal of Psychoanalysis, 50(4), 711–716.
