One of the meanings is body adornment which traditionally has distinguished female bodies from male bodies. Men in certain communities are changing this distinction even within heterosexual frameworks. Well manicured hands are a symbol of social class, hygiene, health and basic care of infants, the sick and the elderly ( which includes men and women). The adornment of nails in women has changed significantly over time, including nail colors and the length of nails. It has varied with age, social class, occupational category among others.

I think, you are already on a good way in your question. I would use Butler and her interpretation of Monique Wittig of gender as something that "makes" the body. In that way, fingernails would be a -non-practical- modification in some way that is supposed to get the person that has long fingernails closer to a culturally shared ideal of the female gender and "the woman" in a given culture (the Western one, I would guess). By the way, Bourdieu has been criticized for his work on gender, so maybe Wittig would be a theoretical way out...

The ancient Greeks conceived the entire human race in terms of its fingernails. In "Definitions" 415 a 11, Plato humorously defined the human being as "featherless, twofooted, and endowed with wide fingernails (platyónchos)."

Hi,

thanks a lot for your answers. I had to do some travels so I beg your pardon for delay.

All in all I made very low progression with the fingernail question. I found a document from Nelta Edwards from the University of Alaska. She describes the use of the issue of nail polish to teach the mechanism of doing gender (and homophobia) .

See: http://tso.sagepub.com/content/38/4/362.full.pdf+html

But she spends not much words about the symbolic content.

Sorry Elizabeth, but to stay on the point that fingernails are just an object or practice of adornment does not satisfied me.

Even when it is very interesting to me, that the extremities seem to be the favorite locations of body adornment (it may better to speak about body modification, even when the boundaries are unsharp, it could be helpful to get a broader and holistic view of body practice with different deepness of modification and irreversibility’s)

Furthermore I disagree a little bit about the assumed variety of the adornment of nails. I think it is rather very similar over class, ethnic and age. It seems to me that the basic picture which can inspect more or less all around the world shows long and mostly red painted nails. At least as a western idealization.

But the task is still open: What does that global picture means?

The two approaches I assumed above (firstly: nobles and luxury not to need to do hand work, secondary: limitation of “natural” function of fingers) are still well candidates of the symbolic meaning. Problematic is that the latter is not very well suitable to the housewife role and the further care work.

A new approach could be the historical often assumed particular closeness of women to the nature. The constructed bias between the rational men and the emotional women are well described (see: the hetero normative bias construction of nature – culture). Following those thoughts the red polished and long fingernails are an animalistic narrative. It symbolized bloody claws. It serves and promotes the predator aspect of the female role. On the other hand the beast imagination could be just a male fear. Fear of castration or of the female menace of the rational based culture system Than the female finger nail practice targeting this fear and could read as a symbol of rebellion against the male orderliness.

Thanks a lot for naming Monique Wittig. I have not known her yet. I confess that I have some problems with the imagination of “making” the body like butler proposed. That may works in a sematic way but -it may be a tribute to my natural science education- your possibilities to “make” your body are limited (even if there is for sure a broad windows of opportunities). I like to call it the biological “rest” you can´t change physical. Furthermore it seems to me like an omnipotence fantasy to believe in a designability of everything.

So far as I understand it right, the critique of Bordieu on Butler was the using of the gender category to overcome the same category. ( I like to add: Luhmann´s system theory sounds very similar at this point) I haven´t heard much about the feministic replica on that critique. But I will look after it.

So do well everybody

Volker Handke

PS: Thanks a lot Nelson for Platon. I don´t know much about his definitions, but if he mentioned “wide” nails as a crucial human attribute, I can´t imagine that he had the female body practice in mind. It might be fruitful to search if there was male body practice of enlargement and painting fingernails in the history. If so -and I guess this male body practice could be found at historical social elites like priests, aristocrat´s, etc.- the nobles and “not-working” meaning comes up again.

Very fine,

Thanks a lot

I guess you are meaning Amotz Zahavi´s handicap principle with the peacock example.

That could be a reasonable description I will a read a bit around that

A helpful advice

Thank you

Yes it is not without risk to transfer biologic fact to the human sphere.

From my point of view it has to do with the culture and nature question. As human we are able to overcome the nature by culture and on the other hand we are still part of the nature and can´t or can just slowly leave our biological heritage.

For example: I am very skeptical if I hear from hard core constructivists when the claim to overcome the two sexes structure of human being and try to teach their multi sexes approach in school.

On the other hand I know well the broad misuse potential of naturalism, when biological fact should legalize social behavior.

Do you know the wolf pack story: Long time even biologist were sure that only a male leader would rule a wolf pack, because they have human organization of the sexes in mind and looking after analogy in the nature. But today we know that every pack is leaded by a couple of a female and a male wolf.

With the laughing hyaena it is similar. So the examples of naturalism which are just trying to legitimate social organization are legion.

For me these are well grounded reasons to be very reluctant with transferring biological stuff in socials discourses.

And beyond the function of legitimation, naturalism often contents a hidden message in a way that something is not changeable and therefore it is not discussable.

Kind regards

Hi Cecile,

Thanks very much for your elaborated statement.

I am not sure if I understand everything completely so I have to think about some aspects you indicated. But a few other I liked to commend:

… the nature (which always continues to be)… The consequence of this thought would be that there is no place without nature and furthermore there is quit nothing without nature. This makes me remembering the term that nature is the force which try to fill the nothing. I like that.

Anyway and beside this basic principle I agree that nature and culture are only thinkable together. And yes, our logic is strongly based on separation: “either or” instead of “both”. These generate all the inclusions and exclusions which are very practicable but often linked with painful experience and not at least in science more and more just wrong.

On the other hand I look a little skeptical or maybe fearful to the multi reality approach. I know well the modelling of language based perceptions, meanings and assessments of reality and this maybe individual. From my point of view that would means an atomization of reality and in a way a kind of arbitrariness and wrong omnipotence. Everything seems to be changeable without borders, universal values and physical facts.

It is difficult for me to image that if someone perceived the reality in an individual way that this has to be accepted in the same way than all other perceptions. (eg. sexual harassment is what someone feel as harassment) I am fear that would be a way of losing the differentiation of truth and false. In a way my understanding of science –and I confess it may be influence from the natural and technology disciplines of sciences I mostly do- is to ask my colleagues if s/he measures or perceive the same than me and if s/he agree I can start to assume this piece of reality could be more than just an individual perception. And yes, I believe that is the way how the value and the robustness of statements and findings can rise.

Another point is the timeline you mentioned. I agree fully that nature always changing species but I would like to add: in which timeline. My thesis is that the time of generating will give us an impression of the time we need to changed it – or deconstruct it we some named this process. And if so we have glue how long it will takes to overcome sexual dimorphism or to use a common gender related phrase to overcome hetero normativity.

I agree that culture is a pressure but isn´t nature be a pressure too? You know to idealizing nature is also an often mentionable phenomena.

At least to your double work thesis. I am not sure if I understand it right but I thought the idea was to share the work. The men take half of the care work and the women half of the breadwinning and vice versa. (That means not only to take but also to give up the former domains)

I am sorry but in consequent that means half-day motherhood -and fatherhood too- that might be hurt the idealization of motherhood.

Oh and I love to be a grain of sand in big discussions. Thank you for this picture.

Have a nice day.

Hi Cecile,

I just read your contribution on another discussion so I remember that I may still owe you a reply.

Firstly I like to specify my thesis: Evolution time perform deconstruction time.

The time needed by biology evolution to perform the physical distinguishes between mal and female bodies determinate the time needed to deconstruct the heteronormativity of the sexes by culture and doing gender. This seems to me truth even if technology enables a nearly complete sex transformation and even if the everyday body performing of men and women is going to be more and more comparable.

Secondly and maybe nearer to you core task

Who rules design and body?

If I read your statement it sounds to me to much as women are just passive victims when they waste money and time to look as they think they have to look.

So I thought aren´t it traditionally women who are concerned and decide about design and beauty? That can be of course interpret as a golden cave or trap with a manmade framework. But also as female hegemony about the question what is beautiful and what is ugly. What is tastefully and what is to blame.

It is traditionally the wife who decided what a beautiful home is from the whole interior until the design and color of her husband panties.

Especially the pantie question is something I can´t really understand. This enormous lack of independence of men sounds for me not much like a man’s world of design and beauty.

Have a nice day

Volker

Hi Cécile,

what do you mean to the "pantie question"?

Is it a female hegemony about design and beauty

or is it just an extended mother and son relationship?

Hi there,

I got some news that may touch the issue here.

My teenage daughter told me her following observation:

If a man wants to look on his fingernails he turns the forehand up and bends his fingers.

If a woman wants to look on her fingernails she turns her backhand up and spreads/stretch’s her fingers.

I made some empiric and it works amazing well. I was surprised how common this is. I am not sure how local/regional or ubiquitin this phenomenon is. It would be very interesting to know if this is also common in other regions of cultures.

It may mean nothing more than just a small piece of gendered body practice.

But I ask myself what kind of background may works.

Is the male view just a proof if the nails are dirty? Dirty from the handwork, masculinity has long tradition with. And what does a woman want to proof with her kind of view: Beauty? Health? Or is it just uncommon for her gender to clench a fist?

Does it mean something that the finger tips show back to the person or out to the world? How gendered is clenching/bending and spreading/stretching?

If anybody has some thoughts about this I would be thankful for any inspirations.

Especially about the cross culture verification of this body practice I am highly interested in.

Have a nice day

Volker

I have read the same thing somewhere - but can't remember where. My personal Interpretation would be: the "femine" way of looking at ones fingernails allows for more light - therefore ist Background could be cosmetic.

because stretching out the hand makes the fingers appear more slender

Long pointed fingernails in ancient times were used by some queens in Africa in wars and when confronting the enemy as a symbol of strength and ferocity and perhaps at the same time self-care as a female