Intact

by Clare Chambers

'A must-read for psychotherapists, doctors and everyone else who enjoys connecting ideas' Philippa Perry'Compassionate and challenging, warmly human and coolly rigorous. . . I am now thinking afresh about how I live in my own body, in a world where, as Clare Chambers argues, nobody's body is ever allowed to be good enough, just as it is' Timandra HarknessWhat would it take for your body to be good enough?The pressure to change our bodies is overwhelming. We strive to defy ageing, build our biceps, cure our disabilities, conceal our quirks. Surrounded by filtered photos and surgically-enhanced features, we must contort our physical selves to prejudiced standards of beauty. Perfection is impossible, and even an acceptable body seems out of reach.In this mind-expanding book, Cambridge philosopher Clare Chambers argues that the unmodified body is a key political principle. While defending our right to change our bodies, she argues that the social pressures to modify undermine equality. She shows how the connected ideas of the natural body, the normal body, and the whole body have been used both to disrupt and to maintain social hierarchies - sometimes oppressing, other times liberating. The body becomes a site of political a place where hierarchies of sex, gender, race, disability, age, and class are reinforced.Through a thought-provoking analysis of the power dynamics that structure our society, and with examples ranging widely from bodybuilding to breast implants, deafness to male circumcision, Intact stresses that we must break away from the oppressive forces that demand we alter our bodies. Instead, it offers a bold, transformative vision of the human body that is equal without expectation.

Genres: Nonfiction, Philosophy, Feminism, Psychology, Audiobook, Politics

Hardcover

Published February 24, 2022

About the author

Clare Chambers is University Senior Lecturer in Philosophy and Fellow of Jesus College, University of Cambridge. Her field is political philosophy, particularly feminist and liberal theories of justice, equality, autonomy, culture, family and the body.

Reviews

[Lisa · Rating 5 out of 5]

Back at the 'turn of the century', in my first year of an English Studies degree, I had to take a year long course in critical and cultural theory. The course introduced us gormless freshers to formalism, structuralism, post-structuralism, modernism, postmodernism, feminism, postcolonialism, Marxism, queer theory, psychoanalysis: a new week, a new critical paradigm. That many of the texts were written so densely and abstrusely didn't help: one woman in my tutorial quipped that literary theorists must get paid by the syllable.

Both the concepts and the writing styles we were exposed to (subjected to?) seemed so rarified that while I could, just about, understand them as theoretical frameworks, I could not fathom of the cerebral, intense people who wrote them actually living in the world. Did poststructuralists ever pause from their furious scribblings to wonder if this was the week for putting out the red bin or the green bin? Did Michel Foucault ever spend a pleasantly mindless half hour pulling weeds out of a planter box, or pause in the supermarket trying to decide which biscuits to buy? Do Marxist theorists enjoy kicking back at the weekend with a barbeque? (Too bourgeois, perhaps)

Intact by Clare Chambers (who, irrespective of what Goodreads say, is NOT the novelist who wrote Small Pleasures and other works) is a refreshing contrast. It is a cogent treatise, clearly written, in which Chambers forefronts and interrogates the embodied nature of life: we may not 'just' be our bodies, but nor are we disembodied intellects. This text explores the philosophical and ethical underpinnings of what we choose to do, or not to do, to our bodies, and teases out the loaded concepts of what is 'normal' and 'natural', particularly as they relate to areas such as race, disability and gender. It may not be a light read but it is an important one.

[jessica]

Pretty much understood and concurred with her argument from the introduction, which was a bit too long and rather repetitive, so I’m not sure I would have gotten much more out of slogging through the rest of this dense, philosophically academic text (to be expected really, as the author is Professor of Political Philosophy at Cambridge.) Or more fairly, I’m just not in the right headspace to absorb this text. Judging by the introduction, I do predict that Chambers will take a very thorough and intersectional approach throughout and will often check her own privilege, which is a big tick in its favour. Also, can’t highlight the ebook on the BorrowBox app and the page numbers/percentage read wouldn’t load either, so abandoned it. Am still very intrigued by this topic though and would possibly try the audiobook in the future or give it another try physically if I found it in a charity shop!

[Ajith Ashokkumar (LordOfBooks) · Rating 3 out of 5]

The author's intention is clear and well-intentioned. Some of the chapters in this book are particularly thought-provoking, such as the one that argues that the right to keep one's body intact is a personal choice. Ultimately, it is up to each individual whether they want to modify their body or keep it intact. Adults over the age of 18 have the right to make this decision for themselves, and no one should question their choices, regardless of the social or environmental factors that may have influenced them.
However, at times, the author's stance on body modification appears inconsistent, suggesting a possible presence of double standards. This fluctuation in perspective can be confusing for readers, as there is an apparent contrast between opposing and supporting body modifications throughout the book.

"Freedom means owning my body and the choices I make for it."

[Jessica Macdonald · Rating 3 out of 5]

Man I’m conflicted on how I felt with this book. First of all, it is a SLOG to get through, especially given I haven’t spent much time reading philosophical arguments since my a-levels. Some chapters were fascinating and very linked to the concept of the unmodified body having value, others were very dry or seemed to go quite off topic. I didn’t not like this book, but I also found myself neglecting to pick it up towards the latter half of the book.

[Stephanie · Rating 5 out of 5]

4.5 stars

[Jana Rađa · Rating 4 out of 5]

“There is something valuable in allowing your body to be good enough, just as it is.”

An Audible listen, but there is no audio on Goodreads so I'm sticking with the Kindle edition. Also Clare Chambers listed as author is not Clare Chambers who wrote this book. Clare Chambers, the author of Intact: A Defence of the Unmodified Body, is Professor of Political Philosophy and a Fellow of Jesus College, University of Cambridge. Her bio says she is particularly known for her feminist critique of the liberal focus on choice; her ideas of “shametenance” and the unmodified body; her account of social construction; her problematisation of the concept of ‘normal’; her engagement with beauty norms and the body; her critique and analysis of Rawlsian political liberalism; her work on multiculturalism, religion, and intervention; her critique of state-recognised marriage; and her proposals for the alternative regulation of relationships (at https://www.clarechambers.com/). I requested Goodreads librarians to change the author and add the audiobook edition, so this should be corrected.

I found out about the book from an article in The New Statesman and was intrigued (The philosophical case for not wearing make-up, https://www.newstatesman.com/encounte...). It had a paywall (dammit!), so I did some googling and finally decided that this book was right up my alley. I was not disappointed. I liked it a lot and will be listening to this one again.

Intact covers many aspects of body modification, from body-building to breast implants, make-up to male circumcision, and it is beautifully written. Excellent as food for thought. Nota bene, Clare Chambers does not propose the unmodified body as an ideal. In an interview (Philosophy Break, https://philosophybreak.com/articles/...), she is asked:

"In your book, you state you don’t want to put forward the unmodified body as a conclusion, but rather as a valuable premise. Can you explain what you mean here, and why you view this as a modest yet radical position?"

In her response, which might as well answer your question whether this book is for you, Clare Chambers says:

"As I mentioned earlier, it’s not part of my argument to criticize individual practices of modification, or to argue that we should never modify our bodies. For starters, this would be impossible. Every time we eat or drink, exercise or rest, engage in personal hygiene or don’t, we’re subtly modifying our bodies. Our bodies can’t be literally unmodified.

But there’s also a deeper reason why the unmodified body is a premise and not a conclusion. Dominant ideals about how bodies should be mean that some of us have bodies that are closer to those ideals than others. Body ideals are structured around sex and gender, emphasise particular racialized features, tend to value youthfulness, and so on. Given that, prizes for remaining unmodified would be prizes for the privileged.

The problem is not with all body modification practices as such (although some practices are risky or harmful, and I discuss that in the book). The problem is with the constant and overwhelming pressure to modify our bodies — the pressure to think of our bodies as always and inevitably failing.

One part of this picture is what I call “shametenance”. Shametenance is all the things that we do to maintain the idea that our bodies are shameful. It includes the ways that our bodies are meant to be kept private or unsayable — I discuss the example of period shame here — and all the things we do to conceal those parts or aspects of our bodies that it would be shameful to reveal. For some people that might be the felt need to conceal wrinkles or gray hair; for others it might be about hiding scars or blemishes; for some it might be about hiding fat and disguising body shape; for others, it’s about concealing disability or constructing a body to fit one’s identity.

My argument is very simple, because it asks us to consider whether we might be able to allow our bodies to be good enough just as they are. It’s about rejecting social pressures, not rejecting all modification. But it’s radical, because it also means refusing shametenance — and this is a very difficult step."

She also presented her book in a public lecture; it's available on Youtube if you're interested: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W20-V...

[Gabriel Levc]

I thoroughly enjoyed this book. For a work of philosophy, it is very readible, nuanced, and rich in examples. While the general trajectory of the book is clear enough from the Introduction, I still enjoyed most of the chapters that followed. Chambers‘ observations are just hella smart.

However, I think, ironically, the final chapter is the one where she slips up argumentatively. Throughout the book, Chambers defends the claim that the unmodified body has value. She is very careful to distinguish this claim from stronger claims she does not endorse: That the unmodified body is always better, that we are automatically doing something wrong when we modify it, etc.

This nuance is, I think, what makes the book convincing. It would be weird to claim that getting tattoos is a moral failure; but, so Chambers claims, it would be similarly weird to claim that not getting reconstructive surgery is.

This nuance, however, is something that poses a problem in the book‘s final chapter. Here, Chambers argues that in cases in which a person cannot decide for themselves, their bodily integrity mandates that we should choose not to modify them, unless the modification would severely increase their future choices or best interests. Think of cases like whether to implant a deaf child a Cochlea module, or whether to give puberty blockers to kids identifying as trans. Here, Chambers holds, unless one option is clearly choice or interest maximizing, we should abstain from body modification.

I do agree with this outcome, but I don‘t really think that Chambers‘ buildup can support the conclusion. For in cases such as these, what is required is not that the unmodified body has value, but that it has *more* value. And this is precisely what is unclear in these cases. They might turn out to be cases in which modification would have been the better choice - at the time of making a decision, it simply isn‘t established what is the better option.

It is important to keep in mind that the cases in which Chambers‘ principle is supposed to apply are precisely those in which a) one of the options could be better, and b) not making a choice has irreversible consequences. In situations in which all other things are equal, her principle works; if, suppose, having and not having a Cochlea implant is equally good, then yeah, let‘s not get one. But the way she sets up the problem is such that it is not clear whether, and if so which of the choices are better.

Or, to put the point differently, we are faced with a decision in which it is unclear whether to value the unmodified or the modified body more; Chambers says it is the unmodified one, but her overall argument only established that it had value, not that it had more value.

PS.: If someone claims - as many reviews here do - that the upshot of the book is that modification is okay so long as it is by choice, that person didn‘t read the book closely enough. Chambers very explicitly discusses how our choices regarding modification are anything but free, and so what counts as the outcome of „free“ choice is difficult, if not impossible to establish.

[Carrie · Rating 4 out of 5]

"As I mentioned earlier, it’s not part of my argument to criticize individual practices of modification, or to argue that we should never modify our bodies. For starters, this would be impossible. Every time we eat or drink, exercise or rest, engage in personal hygiene or don’t, we’re subtly modifying our bodies. Our bodies can’t be literally unmodified.

But there’s also a deeper reason why the unmodified body is a premise and not a conclusion. Dominant ideals about how bodies should be mean that some of us have bodies that are closer to those ideals than others. Body ideals are structured around sex and gender, emphasise particular racialized features, tend to value youthfulness, and so on. Given that, prizes for remaining unmodified would be prizes for the privileged.

The problem is not with all body modification practices as such (although some practices are risky or harmful, and I discuss that in the book). The problem is with the constant and overwhelming pressure to modify our bodies — the pressure to think of our bodies as always and inevitably failing.

One part of this picture is what I call “shametenance”. Shametenance is all the things that we do to maintain the idea that our bodies are shameful. It includes the ways that our bodies are meant to be kept private or unsayable — I discuss the example of period shame here — and all the things we do to conceal those parts or aspects of our bodies that it would be shameful to reveal. For some people that might be the felt need to conceal wrinkles or gray hair; for others it might be about hiding scars or blemishes; for some it might be about hiding fat and disguising body shape; for others, it’s about concealing disability or constructing a body to fit one’s identity.

My argument is very simple, because it asks us to consider whether we might be able to allow our bodies to be good enough just as they are. It’s about rejecting social pressures, not rejecting all modification. But it’s radical, because it also means refusing shametenance — and this is a very difficult step."

[DW Rowlands · Rating 4 out of 5]

Intact: A Defense of the Unmodified Body is a detailed and quite-long philosophical and ethical exploration of the concept of body modification taken broadly—it includes, for example, a chapter on body-building—that approaches the issue from the point of view of arguing for more social acceptance for the choice not to modify one's body. I found several sections, and in particular the one on "shametenance," appearance modification that people, especially women, are pressured to put regular effort into to be socially acceptable, insightful.

I admit that I read this book primarily as a possible intactivist reference, and it was at least potentially useful in that regard. I was concerned, of course, given that the author is British, about whether the book would be transphobic, and I was largely relieved to find that her section on adult trans people was reasonably respectful, even if I felt that she was sometimes a bit prone to claim to be more authoritative than is reasonable about what is or is not dysphoria. I think that her short argument against allowing puberty-blockers for trans kids, however, was insufficiently justified.

[Kate Page · Rating 4 out of 5]

I found this a very interesting read. I enjoyed the questioning and thoughtful approach and the thoughtful philosophical thinking around what is natural, real, unmodified. It's got a clear feminist perspective and raises lots of interesting issues. It's an absorbing and not difficult read and one of those books that has made me pick up on issues and think about things in a slightly different way.
I wasn't sure, though, that making the defense of the unmodified body into a political principle worked exactly. It's a brilliant starting point for a philosophical exploration of the issues, and I agree with most of the points the author is making, but is too open and unclear for a political position. When I discussed it with people I found it very hard to explain and what the centre of it was a bit slippery in my mind. It always led into questions about what is meant by unmodified, which as I said, is an interesting discussion but blunts the political point.

[Nicole · Rating 4 out of 5]

Chamber’s weaves the supporting argument of her manifesto through interesting and varied subjects, from female body building competitions, to infant male circumcision to breast-cancer-survivor tattoo culture. I agree with the other reviews that this book is very academic, slow in pace and heavy on qualifiers. However, I think it’s nuanced, well researched and I found myself challenged on several preconceptions. I thought the sections on guarding children’s consent, deaf culture and clinical/cosmetic surgery definitions were particularly strong.

“When women try to get their bodies back they are usually aiming for the post-pubescent, pre-pregnancy body, a body that exists for perhaps ten or twenty years of the average woman's eighty-three years of life. Somehow, that minority body becomes not just the ideal body but the authentic body: the one that most accurately characterizes who you really are, inside.”

“The dominant message of many contemporary cultures, especially Westernized, capitalist cultures, is: your body is not good enough. It needs to be changed so that it truly represents who you are, and so that it meets standards of who you should be.”

[Rosa · Rating 5 out of 5]

I finally finished this incredible, dense work today and I can only recommend it. Taking the reader through the whole gamut of ways in which we might modify our bodies, and the reasons why we might wish to think carefully about doing so; our responsibility to ourselves and to others in making choices about what we choose to do with our bodies... The whole thing is deeply researched and carefully considered and I was pleased to read it. I strongly agree with the book's very well argued position, and I would recommend it to any health professional or psychologist as a really useful tool.

Given the huge swathe of references, this isn't exactly light reading, but it was rewarding and I am glad I persisted because it was extremely interesting.

[İrem · Rating 4 out of 5]

Intact presents the nuances and mechanisms involved in the decisions we make to change our and others' bodies. It lays out the social, economic, and religious pressures to modify the body and discusses how principles of consent, bodily autonomy, bodily integrity, and reversibility can be used to resist the pressure to change.

The only argument the book makes is that all bodies are good enough as they are because the body is inseparable from the self.

Chambers is very careful not to pass any moral judgment for any case she presents. So this can be a difficult read if you would rather be told what to do than make your own informed decisions.

[Chelsea Knowles · Rating 3 out of 5]

This was just fine. I really thought this was going to be amazing but it really didn’t say anything new. Every point was something I think a lot of people already know. For example, the author talks about how in past centuries body hair on women was seen as normal and expected but now many women are expected to shave. This is a fine point but most women know this right? Like the points in this book are just so basic. It’s so underwhelming and feels like a really long university essay someone has decided to publish. Also the introduction was way too long, it was annoying me.

[Jessica Aureli · Rating 2 out of 5]

(DNF)

I really wanted to like this, and I found the subject matter interesting in theory, but the actual reading of the book was a slog. Perhaps it’s on me: I read a lot of popular non-fiction, but I found this was very academic in tone and format, which I’m not used to.

I felt like the book got bogged down in methodology more than was perhaps necessary, and while I did enjoy the anecdotal chapters, ultimately I didn’t feel like I was going to learn anything new, especially that I fundamentally agree with the premise anyway.

[Gia (지아) · Rating 3 out of 5]

Maybe I'm just not that familiar with the tone of contemporary philosophy. This book had some good ideas, no doubt. It was interesting to read how the concept of the unmodified body wove through many different issues, from bodybuilding to hearing loss. However I found it became very repetitive, very quickly. I found 30% of the book to be insightful and profound, but the other 70% mundane observations and stating the obvious. Again, this is likely my fault for not understanding contemporary philosophy.

[Julia · Rating 5 out of 5]

Well-expounded philosophical text that interprets and gives meaning to many of the 'body modification' rituals peddled by modern culture and medicine, whilst offering a philosophical justification for why we ought to reject the pressure for these. There were interesting intersections between body modification and mental illness, as well as gender dysphoria, that Chambers handles sensitively and deeply.

[Alma · Rating 4 out of 5]

Un ensayo sobre cómo modificamos nuestro cuerpo, y una defensa a no hacerlo a la ligera. Desde los motivos más prosaicos como apariencia, salud o sociedad, hasta casos más extremos como casos médicos y discapacidades. Un libro que se hace muy ameno y que te da una perspectiva nueva sobre el cambio en los cuerpos en la que posiblemente no habías pensado.

[Becky · Rating 4 out of 5]

I read a lot of health-focused non-fiction, and I found this reasonably complex. I enjoyed that it made me think, but by the end it felt like the author’s arguments hinged on a couple of specific procedures, and as a result, a point was overly laboured. Would recommend - be patient with yourself in considering the content, and you’ll get a lot out of it.

[Hannah Tappenden · Rating 4 out of 5]

Overall an interesting and thought provoking read.

I was annoyed at some anti-fat bias in the chapter exploring how parents should consider decisions about modifying children’s bodies. Feeding ‘unhealthy’ food and allowing children to be ‘inactive’ was criticised.

This didn’t sit well before a chapter on body positivity.

[Jo Birkett · Rating 1 out of 5]

Chose in error expecting it to be fiction author Clare Chambers and er it's not. Polemic on pressures to modify your body, 12 hrs 39 mins of. Not uninteresting but very exhaustive and it really doesn't need to be.

[Harriet · Rating 4 out of 5]

3.5 stars. An interesting insight into modified and unmodified bodies in various forms, such as surgery, gender, disability etc. I'd recommend listening to it as an audiobook because some sections are quite academic so are a bit dry.

[Wiley · Rating 4 out of 5]

Very interesting read on the intersection between bodily integrity, social pressures, consent, and disability theory. Although the argument washed out to be a "have your cake and eat it too" situation (in my opinion), it still brings up many perspectives I had not considered about minority bodies.

[Þorgerður María · Rating 4 out of 5]

It's really good but a little bit repetitive, could be a bit shorter :)

[Sydney Gomes · Rating 5 out of 5]

A well-balanced, highly critical analysis of the principles of the unmodified body. Chambers contrasts and analogises the many subjects related to the issue in a highly nuanced manner.

[Romany · Rating 4 out of 5]

A dense philosophical read with some interesting logic-based arguments.

[Katy W · Rating 1 out of 5]

I can't take seriously a woman who quotes 'Sophie-Grace' Chappell uncritically.

[Gigi · Rating 3 out of 5]

Agree with the concepts and proposal, didn't love the writing.

[April Garner · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is an excellent philosophical approach to thinking about why we modify our bodies and how it can be a form of self expression, a tool for enforcing social inequality or a tangle of both.
This isn’t feminism 101; it’s a deep dive. But it has solidified my thinking in how I make decisions about what interventions I embrace or eschew for my body and for my children’s bodies.
It can get a little tedious in places, but it’s overall an excellent read.