This article compares two variations of bodily practices and bodily-grounded orientations and systems of relevance: the blind and the sighted life-worlds. Blindness is conceptualized as a particular style of perception being in no way a deficit but on equal footing with sight. Comparison will show differences and commonalities that may give a deeper insight into how bodily and sensory orientation and practice work in a mundane situation. This situation is feeding behavior and in particular its failure in “Chewing Accidents” focusing on three variations: tongue biting, swallowing a wasp, and biting on a cherry pit. Data are taken from participant observation, focused interviews, and online sources such as blogs and medical forums. By virtue of a detailed phenomenological description of chewing behavior, the article shows that blindness is not the contradiction of sight and vice versa. Invisibility is an element of the everyday life-world, with the latter being dependent on dark areas.
HowesD. ed. 1991. The Varieties of Sensory Experience: A Sourcebook in the Anthropology of the Senses. Toronto, Ontario, Canada: University of Toronto Press.
12.
HowesD.2003. Sensual Relations: Engaging the Senses in Culture and Social Theory. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
13.
JayM.1994. Downcast Eyes: The Denigration of Vision in Twentieth-Century French Though. Berkeley: University of California Press.
14.
KellerR.MeuserM., eds. 2010. Körperwissen. Wiesbaden: VS.
15.
KnoblauchH.2001. “Fokussierte Ethnographie.” Sozialer Sinn. Zeitschrift für hermeneutische Sozialforschung1:123–41.
16.
Knorr CetinaK. 2001. “Viskurse.” In Mit dem Auge denken. Strategien der Sichtbarmachung in wissenschaftlichen und virtuellen Welten, edited by HeintzB.HuberJ., 305–20. New York: Springer-Verlag.
17.
LederDrew. 1990. The Absent Body. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
18.
LevinDavid. 1993. Modernity and the Hegemony of Vision. Berkeley: University of California Press.
19.
LoenhoffJ.2002. “Sinne, Kommunikation und Gesellschaft.” Österreichische Zeitschrift für Soziologie27 (2): 14–29.
20.
Merleau-PontyM.1962. Phenomenology of Perception. London: Routledge.
21.
MitchellW. J. T.2003. “The Obscure Object of Visual Culture: A Response to Meike Bal.” Journal of Visual Culture2 (2): 249–52.
Obrador-PonsP.2009. “Building Castles in the Sand: Repositioning Touch on the Beach.” Senses & Society4 (2): 195–210.
24.
PatersonM.2006. “Seeing with the Hands, Touching with the Eyes: Vision, Touch and the Enlightenment Spatial Imaginary.” Senses & Society1 (2): 225–42.
25.
PatersonM.2007. The Senses of Touch: Haptics, Affects and Technologies. Oxford: Berg.
26.
RammertW.2006. “Technik in Aktion. Verteiltes Handeln in soziotechnischen Konstellationen.” In Technografie. Zur Mikrosoziologie der Technik, edited by RammertWernerSchubertCornelius, 163–95. Frankfurt/Main: Campus.
27.
SacksOliver. 1995. An Anthropologist on Mars: Seven Paradoxical Tales. London: Picador.
28.
SacksOliver. 2003. “A Neurologist’s Notebook: The Mind’s Eye—What the Blind See.” New Yorker, July28, 48–59.
29.
SaerbergSiegfried, 2006: Geradeaus ist einfach immer geradeaus. Eine lebensweltliche Ethnographie blinder Raumorientierung. Konstanz: UVK.
30.
SaerbergSiegfried. 2010. “Just Go Straight Ahead. How Blind and Sighted Pedestrians Negotiate Space.” Senses & Society5 (3): 364–81.
