The readings for this week’s discussion were informative in the evolving role and acceptance of tattoos with respect to both body and gender. I chose to read some of Margot Mifflin’s Bodies of Subversion: A Secret History of Women and Tattoo first which gave me clear insight into the connection between feminism, tattoos, and body. Personally, when recalling my own understanding of tattooing and women, I immediately go to the idea of self-recovery or the reclaiming of self-identity due to past abuse or experiences that have taken something from me that I want to be able to dictate in my own way. Mifflin’s choice of words in the following quote really resonate with me, “Tattoos appeal to contemporary women both as emblems of empowerment in an era of feminist gains and as badges of self-determination at a time when controversies about abortion rights, date rape, and sexual harassment have made them think hard about who controls their bodies—and why” (Mifflin 1). Although I think this kind of statement is continuously relayed in different words as a reason for being tattooed, I think that the idea of the tattoo as a form of non-verbal communication was relayed in many of these readings.
To feed off of that idea, Atkinson’s article, “Pretty in Ink: Conformity, Resistance, and Negotiation in Women’s Tattooing” opened up with an idea described by Shilling (1993, 1997) as “body projects,” when referring to the physical modifications of one’s body to reinvent or re-construct self-identity. What falls under the title of “body modification” is broad as even getting a haircut is considered body modification because one is changing a physical aspect of themselves. The more drastic examples of body modification are clearly plastic/cosmetic surgery, dieting, surgeries to repair body parts (knee or hip replacements). And then we come across tattoos as a form of body modification. I find that although we consider tattoos to be far more “permanent” than other forms of artistic body modification, we seem to forget that when deciding to get surgery because we need it for our well-being and ability to function. The primary concern of Atkinson’s article highlights how tattoos are studied and interpreted as “embodied signifiers of gender” (220). By exploring research focused centrally on feminist and profeminist body modification, Atkinson reminds us of the multilayering purpose of tattoos, both psychologically and physically. Kosut (2000) cultivates more conversation about ideas conveyed in the other articles and although this does not necessarily directly relate to Elias and Scotson’s theory of established.outsider social relationships expressed in Atkinson’s article, this quote expresses the psychological “layering” of tattoos in a way that I would have described: “No tattoo narrative fits neatly into one category; themes overlap, meld and merge within each story.” (Kosut 82).