Locating the Other to control (the manifestations of) difference

Nobécourt hints at a double presence in the body, and the idea of a double within, whose difficulty to fully contain may also point to the fragility of the boundaries of the subject. Indeed as Stacey reminds us,

the body has been understood to be constituted within and through a system of boundaries which are integral to wider beliefs about defilement and purification. The boundaries of the body are invested with feelings of danger and thus passage across them is repeatedly and scrupulously monitored and regulated. The “jettisoned objects” from the body’s interior are expelled to the other side of those boundaries, to the margins, and it is this marginality which remains crucial to the regulation of certain bodily states.221

In the case of Irène, psoriasis manifests itself on her border, her skin; it cannot be hidden, and it goes beyond the limits of her body, but still remains an inherent part of it. In a similarly uncontrolled way blood gushes out of Irène’s scratched wounds and surpasses the limits of the body imposed by our contemporary system of boundaries. Thus what should remain hidden inside the body overcomes the boundary of the skin and is revealed on the surface of the skin of the character. Furthermore the ‘jettisoned objects’ are not exactly expelled and distanced from the body as Irène’s blood and skin condition seem to be her new complexion. They transcend Irène’s limits and exhibit her difference and may remind of the monstrous which disrupts borders and embodies and warns (monstrare, monere222) about difference. From this permeable skin emanates the feeling of danger that Stacey mentions; the disgusting oozing on her skin testifies to unreliable and moving boundaries, it shows the possibility of overcoming the limits of the body, and by extension one’s fixed place in society. Eventually it threatens to disrupt the binary order of contemporary society. Moreover, beyond this notion of possibility, what my analysis aims to investigate is what is at stake when disrupting social codes and places. These feelings of threat and danger are accompanied by a fear of the unknown, of what lies inside of the body and which refuses to remain behind the barrier of the skin.

221 _{Stacey, Teratologies, p. 75.} 222 _{Shildrick, p. 12.}

This Other inside has to be identified in order to be controlled; by naming the Other, both Irène and the subject in L’Equarrissage seek to differentiate themselves from this presence within (it is inside me but it is not me). Irène names it ‘la chose’ (first

mentioned page 18); similarly the young woman in L’Equarrissage refers to this internal possession as ‘[c]ette chose gonflée’ (23). Indeed despite the process of

distancing oneself from this Other (because it is solely a parasite and not yet recognised as forming part of the self), naming it nonetheless works towards the individuation of the Other.

Furthermore it becomes necessary to locate the Other, despite already knowing that it is somewhere under one’s skin. Irène’s malfunctioning immune system results in the creation of extra layers of skin: the problem is visible on the surface of the skin. However for her family it is inside the body as their daughter is taken to the

psychiatrist: ‘C’est la tête endommagée qu’il faut comprendre’ (25), advises the doctor. Facing the results of her IQ test, the narrator of the story (ironically?) concludes: ‘Mon QI dépasse les prévisions. C’est une faute, c’est une preuve, une confirmation de l’infirmité, de la différence, de la maladie qui grouille sous les cheveux.’ (25-26). Whether above or below expectations, it is Irène’s “abnormality” that disturbs the ability to issue a (medical) judgement. But at the age of four she is already pretending and knows that something else is going on under her skin. She testifies : ‘Dès le début, oui, à trois ans, à quatre ans, dès le début il me faut ne rien dire de tout ce qui se trame’ (24), and continues, ‘Je fais semblant. A quatre ans. Ils m’ont appris à faire semblant au deuxième jour.’ (25). Indeed what Irène seeks is ‘[u]n sursis peut-être pour continuer, atteindre l’âge de la parole, pouvoir enfin avouer’ (25), and she concludes with ‘[u]n sursis avant la peine capitale. Je gagne du temps. J’emporte avec moi, sous mon bras, le verdict de la police médicale : La nature du psoriasis demeure inconnue jusqu’à

aujourd’hui. […] Ah ! je les ai bien eus […] Mais pour combien de temps?’ (26).

It could be argued that the necessity to control her (health) is imposed via the disciplinary approach to her illness. The varied manifestations of psoriasis are named, located, and a cause must be identified: Irène is under the vigilance of the ‘police

médicale’, perpetuated at home by her family. Within this disciplinary context, the child learns to hide (contain within) her malaise and bypass the rules. Like Plectrude at the Opera School, Irène’s life is dependent on her ability to perpetuate a mise en scène; she is forced to conceal her interior perturbations and prevent their appearance on her body. However unknown the nature of psoriasis is for the young child, she is described as

already knowing, feeling in her body, that it is not purely psychological; she is able to fool the adults and keep secret what torments her body from the inside.

This early episode in the story already also invites a more complex

understanding of Irène’s psoriasis: for some characters, it seems to be located under her skin (in her brain), while for others it is assimilated to a skin condition (with visible lesions). However, the child who expresses the need to manipulate others’

perception/understanding of her condition is furthermore displaying a reaction to their own relation with her difference. It could be suggested that Irène’s torments lie somewhere at the intersection between dermatological condition, psychological problems, and her response to others’ inability to come to terms with her difference. Irène’s last interrogation cited above (‘Ah ! je les ai bien eus […] Mais pour combien de temps?’ (26)) shows the early signs of fear about maintaining the ability to keep her secrets from others: how and when will it come out?

This need to find the location of the Other could also be seen as a means to surround the enemy within. For the young protagonist of La Démangeaison the danger is situated outside of her body: it is represented by her parents and family, “them”, as she testifies from the first page of the novel: ‘On ne s’étonnera pas alors qu’ils aient voulu me supprimer’ (11). She puts the guilt of her own condition on them and says ‘Ils m’ont poussée vers les fenêtres, les fleuves, les chaussées; ils m’ont collé des maladies saugrenues comme autant d’excréments de folie à vivre sur ma peau’ (11). She accuses them of rejecting her (‘Ils m’ont poussée’), of showing her the door (represented here by ‘les fenêtres’) and of leading her to places where she would be killed (suicide by defenestration, drowning in rivers, and being run over by a car like an abandoned stray dog or cat; these are the possible understandings of Irène’s own expression of feelings of rejection). Finally she accused them of causing her psoriasis. Together with these she also accuses them of plotting for her death in set-up (car) accidents to which she refers as ‘l’accident opportun qui me ferait disparaître définitivement.’ On the other hand for Irène’s parents the problem is unmistakably situated inside, in the brain (‘C’est le cerveau qui est atteint…’ (32)), as they attempt from an early age to solve the problem with regular sessions at the psychiatrist (24-26). Despite the opposing views on the location of the enemy and problem, the body is expected to function as a container: whether inside or outside of the body, the threat must not be allowed to cross its boundary.