The abject is the othered as is the marginalised body (Sibley 1995:18).
LIFE IN COLOUR (FROM THE ARCHIVE)
When understanding the position of the marginalised body in relation to abjection one has to acknowledge how affecting socio-political factors (i.e., racism, sexism, homophobia) have wholly shaped how the abject body has been realised. Within Geographies of Exclusion (1995:23) Sibley explores how, within the framework of black and white, racial difference constitute as otherness. Referencing bell hooks’ exploration of white attitudes surrounding that of ‘sameness’ within the white race, Sibley concludes how anything different is separated into that of ‘not-white and other’. This idea of otherness in relation to race politics is wholly identifiable with that of abjection. To understand and refer to non-white, non- heteronormative and therefore non-conforming bodies (within the Western sphere) as abject is not to delineate and differentiate oneself as other but to understand how identificatory regimes and colonial histories have positioned these bodies in difference within society. Philips (2014:20-21) understands how ‘groups that have traditionally been thought of as marginal are reclaiming their difference and embracing their abjection’, allowing for a space in which othered beings are able to challenge current socio-political structures through their recognition of themselves as abject to ‘problematize conventions of socially constructed… categories’.