Abstract

The article presents a semiotic mapping of what is generally regarded as “disfigurement”, both as an extralinguistic somatic condition and as a linguistic-conceptual unit. It distinguishes between genetic, traumatic and elective “disfigurement”, also addressing the idea that such a phenomenon is to some extent structurally linked to the very existence and functioning of the face which we use as a relational interface. The article reconstructs the lexical semantics of “disfigurement”, including the alternative terminology that goes beyond derogative intent and is referred to by activists and experts as “visible difference” (title’s “noncompliant faces”). Representation in the media, particularly cinema, seems unable to escape the chain according to which ‘different’ means ‘ugly’ and is a synonym for ‘bad’ or at best ‘negative’. The face, traditionally an invisible filter defining personhood and identity in Western thought, when “disfigured” reveals the ideological overlay of these concepts. The conservative and authoritarian nature of the face (the supposed index of the form of life that lies beneath and is reduced to it) compels those who cannot or will not base everything on the face, and thus risk being dehumanized, to imagine alternatives for vicarious identity expression through a relational interface that can detach themselves from the biological face and the body perceived as a delimited realm.