Untitled - California State University, Long Beach

The above works as a fine example to highlight the body politics that
construct gender in all eras. Consider the colonial establishment of the
world as a breast-shaped entity in early explorations. The earth apparently
“had the shape of a pear, which is all very round, except at the stem,
where it is very prominent, or that is as if one had a very round ball, and
one part of it was placed something like a woman’s nipple” (Sale 176). Or
note the bodily punishments inflicted on women in the medieval ages,
in particular, the ripping of breasts. The choice of the breast as a point of
focus, both in medieval and colonial ideology, now is forced to represent
something apart from being a factor of anatomical distinction. After all
in Nathaniel Hawthorne’s The Scarlet Letter why was the scarlet letter
branded on the bosom (of the gown) of Hester Prynne and not directly
seared on her forehead or any other conspicuous part of her body? Why
was one of the indicators of a (female) virgin the direction her nipples
pointed in?
Medieval violence and legal (although an arguable term) punishment
tended to be concentrated on specific parts of the body. I focus in
particular on the torturous procedure of ripping of the breasts from the
body of a condemned medieval woman. The punishment was inflicted
for various reasons having to do with the doubt cast on the physical and
moral purity of women. The procedure in itself was a most gruesome and
cruel one, and the equipment to carry it out was termed, quite matterof-factly,
the “breast ripper.” A formidable looking instrument, the ripper
was equipped with metal claws piercing into the flesh of breast and
tearing it from the body.
But the question is, why the breast? Why was that particular physical
feature of the body chosen as the site of this cruelty? Is it simply because it
is the most and immediate distinct marker of biological identity between
the sexes? This is not to indicate that the point of cruelty could be
diverted to any other part of the body but to underline the multitude of
166 | Sivaraman
meanings that the removal of this particular anatomical region delineates.
The conscious selection of the breast as the receptor of penalty has to
possess some meaning that transcends physical pain.
In “The Filipina’s Breast: Savagery, Docility, and the Erotics of the
American Empire” Nerissa Balce notes that records of colonial documents
indicate that (savage) breasts were viewed as signs of conquest (Balce 89).
She further observes that in the American imperial imaginary concerning
Filipinas, “savage bodies were also docile bodies needing discipline and
tutelage” (92). It is my contention that this can be projected back to the
medieval ages, where the colonial savage breasts become the microcosm
of medieval women who engage in activities outside a masculineprescribed
law, and the forceful extraction of the breast becomes the sign
of conquest, even if no evident rebellion is found.
Keeping in mind that body politics have played a vital role in
postcolonial discourse, I propose that this removal of breasts as a form of
punishment perhaps serves as an early instigator of gendered connotations.
I argue that breasts obtain meaning as a site of chastity, a chastity that was
relegated almost only to the feminine realm, and, by extension, as a site
of humanity. The physical act of ripping of the breasts translated to the
(masculine) wiping out of passion, maternity (and therefore, mankind).
Thus, in effect, the infliction of such a punishment is an attempt at the
revocation of female agency.
Chastity: A Case Study of Compare and Contrast
“Then raged the cruel one, and bade men torture her / On the breast in the
rack, and bade it afterward be cut off” (Skeat 202).
The breast as a site of chastity is perhaps best highlighted in the
study of the life of St. Agatha. When Quintianus, as a suitor, wished
Sivaraman | 167