Reaction Paper -- Wannabes and Their Procedural Denial

Lainie Frost
TA: S. Park
Reaction Paper
October 21, 2009

‘Wannabes’ and Their Procedural Denial

For some, plastic surgery is not a shocking ritual. However, even those unfazed individuals might find voluntary amputation unsettling. During my search for articles relating to plastic surgery’s representation in the media, I came across the article “The Rhetorical Limits of the ‘Plastic Body’” by John W. Jordan. In Jordan’s article he explores and explains ‘Wannabes’ in context to the plastic surgery world. These Wannabes are individuals who have a perceived body dysmorphia causing them to ask for amputation of body parts that are completely healthy. Because this procedure is not culturally popular, and therefore provocative, surgeons are less likely to perform this type of surgery.

Who They Are

Jordan makes the point that plastic surgery seems accessible because surgeons reinforce the procedure’s democratic nature – anyone can have it, theoretically. In actuality, Wannabes are those individuals who are the exception to this mantra. Jordan draws attention to the way in which Wannabes challenge the authority and acceptance involved in the plastic surgery realm:
The farther an applicant’s desires are from socially sanctioned body images, the more reluctant surgeons are to make those desires real. Because ‘it is, generally, not acceptable in our culture to be disabled, let alone have an unexplained desire and want for amputation or disability,’ wannabes find themselves in the oppressive position of having to prove not only their surgical worthiness but also the validity of their body alteration desires. (Jordan 15).

The ‘Disorder’ Wannabes Cause
Those lacking limbs have always been culturally considered ‘disabled,’ and therefore those healthy bodies requesting to become disabled cause “disorder” within the plastic surgery realm because they challenge what type of surgeries should be performed. (Jordan 16) In this context, the role of surgeon becomes the role of a gatekeeper as the doctor proceeds to deem who is and is not worthy of surgery. Because these surgeons act in this capacity, those seeking amputations must engage in a type of discourse similar to those wanting a nose job or liposuction:
Wannabes further parallel mainstream plastic surgery arguments by making use of the rhetorical juxtaposition between their physical and ideal selves to redefine their desire for amputation as a rational response to a pressing need rather than a fanciful whim or mental instability. Amputees insist that they ‘needed to become an amputee. It was not a wish. It was a need,’ and that for them living in a wrong body is ‘worse than death’ (Jordan 17).

With this parallel, Jordan notes that these amputee-seekers are the ideal surgical candidate for plastic surgery despite the trend of surgery denial. Since these surgeries are not accepted in reality, they are hardly represented in media, particularly on television – a cycle which only reinforces the unacceptable cultural sentiments toward Wannabes.

Negative Framing and Wannabes

In Jordan’s article, he cites a print article that negatively frames Wannabes:

A surgeon in Scotland amputated the legs of two psychologically disturbed men who had nothing physically wrong with them but felt a ‘desperate’ need to be amputees. Although factually accurate, the manner in which the Wannabes are framed casts doubt on the medical veracity of their illness (Jordan 20).

Stories like these act as the media representation for this group. Lacking a diverse portrayal, Wannabes are seemingly de-legitimized, if they were at all considered “legitimate” to begin with in the public’s eye. To align themselves with a more acceptable style of surgery, Jordan claims some Wannabes liken their requests to those who seek sexual reassignment surgery (Jordan 21). Surgeons vehemently negate this argument making positive representation in media even less likely.
In the end surgeons’ general refusal to take part in the desired discourse Wannabes care to engage in yields the inability for cultural paradigms in media to shift in a favorable direction.
While I would never request to have a healthy limb amputated from my body, I believe that these Wannabes should be viewed in a more legitimate context rather than the usual negative frame. Perhaps Wannabes suffer from a mental illness likened to depression or anxiety. Even if they do, I believe this cohort deserves to be served by doctors in the capacity in which Wannabes request their services. There are a plethora of plastic surgery stories out there of people – women in particular – whose couple of surgeries lead to several and in turn lead to an addiction. While addiction in the medical field is acknowledged as part of a mental illness, plastic surgeons still operate on these individuals. If these plastic surgery addicts are served by plastic surgeons then why not serve Wannabes, too? While these two perceived body dysmorphias are on the opposite sides of the plastic surgery spectrum, if one group is served it seems only just that the other is as well. Indeed it is a radical notion; however surgeons cannot claim plastic surgery is a “democratic” ritual – one in which anyone can partake as long as they can pay for it – if they continue the role of gatekeeper. Since they are not the monopoly on morality, and often enable plastic surgery addicts, refusing Wannabes is simply not an option.