Endless Possibilities for Being Limited Only by Our Own Physicality

In his chapter “The Spatiality of One’s Own Body and Movement” from his book Phenomenology of Perception, Maurice Merleau-Ponty uses an emphasis on psychology, specifically abnormal psychology, to help us concentrate on his ideas regarding the embodiment of spatial experience and bodily movement, or, in shorter terms, the relationship between body, space, and perception.  It was interesting to me how Merleau-Ponty brought about a better understanding for what we tend to take for granted in our normal day-to-day lives; we connect and relate without hesitation the evidence from our senses in order to form our common concept of the “one world,” reflexively relating what we perceive or see to what we are able to do.  According to Merleau-Ponty, this relation stems from what he calls the “Intention Arc,” which projects around our physical senses ideas of our past and future and our physical, ideological, moral situations, which in turn produces a unity of our senses.

Though he makes it clear that we are each situated in our own space with our own coordinates, no two of us experiencing the same relationship to a space, Merleau-Ponty is still able through three steps (the meaning of the body image, the body’s relationship with space, and the acquirement of habits) to theorize on all bodies, regardless of race, gender, class, or culture.  Body image, first of all, is located in motility and movement in that being aware of the body is only possible through its changing nature and in the tasks it does and can do.  The body becomes aware of its space only through its interaction with a situation, not through its actual, physical location.  Through this development of the body image and its relation to space, the body will begin to grasp its own being “in-the-world” (115) and gain perspective and the ability to perceive, think, and rationalize.  

Regardless if I am white or black, male of female, American or Cambodian, I will obtain a body image and form knowledge just as the next person will, and it is the situation of the body image that births differences, prejudices, and conflicting beliefs.  Is this the founding idea for tabula rasa?

Furthermore, Merleau-Ponty points out that "[a]s far as bodily space is concerned, it is clear that there is a knowledge of place which is reducible to a sort of co-existence with that place” (121), suggesting a sort of interactive or symbiotic relationship between body and space.  He even shows us how important the creation of boundaries are in organizing the world, “establish[ing] lines of force, to keep perspectives in view, in a world, to organize the given world in accordance with the projects of the present moment, to build into the geographical setting a behavioural one, a system of meanings outwardly expressive of the subject’s internal activity” (129).  Merleau-Ponty would consider our love for our home or our country not only a shallow emotional response but a deeper, more physical response because we are familiar with home and our relationship with the space is more established, allowing the body to function optimally.  Our narrow views of the world--let's face it, we all have them--are narrow because our ability to interact with different spaces is limited by our physicality.  It is the fault of our own humanness that we have any sort of prejudice or discomfort in regards to difference, though I am not trying to excuse it.  The more aware we are of our relationship to the world and our being "in-the-world," the more we would be able to overcome our limits and expand our situational experiences.