Send message to Author

Short abstract:

Building off M’chareks and Shramm’s work on the face as multiple (2020), this paper thinks about the different forms of care mobilized through CLP treatment raising questions on how the boundary between reconstructive/cosmetic is institutionalized within global care regimes.

Long abstract:

This paper aims to explore the technologies and infrastructures that care for cleft lip and/ palate (CLP). My work is situated in a clinic in Asunción, Paraguay run by a global NGO that offers cleft lip and palate surgeries and treatments. Yet despite the promise from the NGO that CLP is an easy problem to fix, CLP research begs otherwise (e.g. Taylor-Alexander, 2016). Numerous methods are available and few unanimous studies. How does the NGO navigate these inconsistencies as they offer care? CLP is further an interesting case to explore care and its relationship to technology since the treatment of CLP focus on four areas: closure of the cleft, hearing, speech, and growth of the face, which in turn also impacts the psychosocial wellbeing of the person and their appearance. This implies that CLP treatment is by default a multidisciplinary endeavour that evokes conflicting values and hierarchies in care. Building off M’chareks and Shramm’s work on the face as multiple (2020), I want to think about the different sites of care that are mobilized through the treatment of CLP which in turn may raise questions about the boundaries between reconstructive and cosmetic and how this boundary is institutionalized within global care regimes. By focusing on CLP, I argue that more insights can be offered to contemporary research on the face within STS, reveal insights on how “we” design (Sabrina, 2016), and offer new ways to unpack the face and what it does.