Author: Julia Lagomarsino

In my research paper titled ‘The Face of Rebellion: A Critical Examination of Western Disdain for Face Ink,’ I aim to unravel the intricate psychological factors contributing to the widespread aversion to face tattoos in Western society. Despite the acceptance of various forms of body art, there is a distinct boundary when it comes to adorning the face and neck, prompting my curiosity about the underlying reasons for this resistance. My interdisciplinary approach, drawing from my background in psychology and neuroscience, focuses on identifying the specific neural processes responsible for the Western dislike of face tattoos.

The core of my argument centers on the Western society’s distaste for face tattoos stemming from factors such as distinctive visual processing, cognitive associations, and principles of attraction influenced by evolutionary psychology. I contend that the surge in popularity of face tattoos, often seen in celebrities, is linked to a media-driven trend that diverges from the aversion associated with other forms of facial tattoos. By delving into the historical aspects and leveraging scientific evidence, I seek to offer insights into the deep-seated, evolutionarily influenced perceptions that unconsciously guide aesthetic preferences and social judgments.

As I explore the complexities of this phenomenon, I acknowledge the significance of the dual modes of perception—humanizing and dehumanizing—triggered by different contextual cues. I propose that the Western aversion to face tattoos may be rooted in the dehumanizing mode, particularly when faced with threatening contexts. To support this, I delve into the concepts of top-down and bottom-up processing in perception psychology, suggesting that pre-existing knowledge and expectations contribute to the negative perception of face tattoos, especially when associated with historical stereotypes. My research represents a nuanced understanding that integrates scientific evidence with sociological perspectives to comprehensively address the multifaceted reasons behind the Western societal aversion to face tattoos.

This past week, I’ve been exploring a wide array of sources to build a solid foundation for my research. Some of the academic books and articles I’ve encountered have been incredibly enlightening. For instance, Chris William Martin’s “The Social Semiotics of Tattoos” and Michael Atkinson’s “Tattooed: The Sociogenesis of Body Art” have provided crucial insights into the cultural and historical dimensions of tattooing. These sources have deepened my understanding of how societal perceptions of body art have evolved over time.

I’ve also delved into the psychological aspect of this aversion, drawing from studies like “Criminal Stereotypes in the Courtroom” and “Negative Implicit Attitudes toward Individuals with a Tattoo near the Face.” These sources offer empirical evidence and psychological insights, which have been essential in bolstering my argument.

I’ve also explored real-world examples, like the case of the Māori journalist who made history by presenting the news with traditional facial markings. This demonstrates the evolving narratives surrounding face tattoos and the complex interplay between cultural identity, personal choices, and societal responses.

As I continue with my research, I’m eager to delve deeper, connecting the various pieces of information I’ve gathered and weaving them into a cohesive narrative. I want to consider counterarguments and ensure that I provide a well-rounded perspective on this intriguing topic. Overall, my research journey has been enlightening and thought-provoking, and I’m looking forward to further exploring the societal aversion to face tattoos and its implications for individuals and society.

This week, I’ve continued my research by collecting a ton of sources about my topic from the library and academic journals online. Additionally, the research question I am currently working with is:

“Why is there a prevalent societal innate aversion or dislike towards face tattoos, and what are the underlying factors, including cultural, psychological, and historical elements, that contribute to this disapproval?” The wealth of sources I explored allowed me to explore the multifaceted nature of this aversion.

I began by reviewing the historical context, uncovering how face tattoos have been associated with indigenous cultures, colonialism, and their impact on contemporary Western society. 

Moreover, I delved into the psychological aspects, understanding how our brains process and react to tattoos. Research on disgust and moral judgments helped clarify the emotional underpinnings of this aversion. It was fascinating to discover how deep-seated emotions, like disgust and fear, play a role in our societal perceptions.

This week’s research has also highlighted the importance of nuance and the need to consider individual experiences and personal narratives. It reinforced the idea that aversion to face tattoos is not a one-size-fits-all phenomenon but varies widely based on culture, upbringing, and personal beliefs.

This week, I centered my research on investigating the scientific basis behind people’s innate distaste for tattoos, because this aspect of my paper really interests me. Firstly, there are not many studies published on this topic; I found a great paper called “Evidence of negative implicit attitudes toward individuals with a tattoo near the face”; this paper contends that they are the first paper to be published on this issue. The study had some really interesting findings that I definitely want to pursue and look into more; additionally, the resources that were cited to develop their argument for the validity of their experiment are valuable for me to pursue (which I’ve already begun). 

In sum, this study found: 

• Observers hold negative associations towards individuals who exhibit a tattoo near their face 
• The expression of the negative implicit attitudes was not caused by the potential interruption of visual processing that an asymmetrical tattoo could create (this was in response to the possibility that individuals may be put off by facial tattoos due to the asymmetry of the design, which could subconsciously lead to an implicit evaluation
• positively valuended tattoos increased but not eliminated the expression of implicit prejudice toward the target with tattoos (tribal image vs heart image)
• Individuals with high internal motivation (“i am personally motivated by my beliefs to be non prejudiced toward people with tattoos” and low external motivation “if i acted prejudiced toward people with tattoos, I would be concerned that others would be angry with me” to respond without prejudice expressed lower implicit attitudes = these findings shed light on which personality factors could contribute to the extent to which an individual dislikes tattoos 

These findings are meaningful to my research and this text has provided me with some background context on what the psychology field is saying about the implicit attitudes associated with tattoos, specifically face tattoos.

I found Enid Schilddkrout’s article “Inscribing the Body” to be fascinating and very informative – she laid so many interesting concepts out on the table that I feel I could pursue as my research topics. 

I like this article because it did such a great job holistically encompassing the different attitudes towards body art within the literature. It was helpful when she started speaking about specific theories (feminist, poststructuralist); this led me to think more about how I could ask my research question in different ways. 

This quote resonated with me (pg 322):

“Inscribed skin highlights an issue that has been central to anthropology since its inception: the question of boundaries between the individual and society, between societies, and between representations and experiences”. 

I think for my research I want to focus on the practice of getting a tattoo after a traumatic event / specific tattoo designs used (the Medusa tattoo, for example). This quote made me reflect to think about how it would be interesting to explore the history of this kind of tattooing (where it has been documented, what kind of trauma, the people getting it), the societal attitudes towards these tattoos, and its implications for trauma healing.

In chapter 10 (pg 158)

“The aim of the research was to contribute to the debate about the pathology of the criminal; but the data itself more often bore witness to fact that tattooing was also a popular habit among the male working class and could not be readily identified with either ‘atavism’ or ‘degeneracy’”. 

This quote stuck out to me because it underscores the negative narrative tied to tattoos and the confirmation bias – the research was aimed to examine the pathology of a criminal. Chapter 10 later suggests “tattoo can be considered, to use the medico-legal term, as a professional characteristic”. This made me think about how in a way, (visible) tattoos are another piece of data another individual takes into account when they make their first impression of you (consciously or subconsciously). 

It’s interesting to think about how tattoos have been linked to showing agency (having control over your life and body) yet its also established that the stigmatized nature of tattoos make people with face tattoos less likely to be hired (limiting their potential possibilities). In chapter 13, the author cites the US Navy’s statement stating that “indecent or obscene tattooing is cause for rejection, but the applicant should be given an opportunity to alter the design, in which event he may, if otherwise qualified, be accepted”. This is so peculiar to me because I truly don’t understand this ubiquitous distaste for tattoos all around the world – I’m interested in learning more about the psychological underpinnings of this disapproval of tattoos. 

More specifically, chapter 13 also emphasizes society’s overall disapproval of underage tattoos, mentioning a law passed in 1933 that makes it a misdemeanor to tattoo a child under the age of 16. Obviously, I’m not encouraging underage tattoos. I’m wondering, what about tattoos makes them so repulsive? From a psychological standpoint, why do humans (from all over) dislike tattoos? It’s just so interesting to me because I frankly don’t understand the controversy.

I spent a lot of time with chapter 8 this week and it sparked my interest. When I initially chose this chapter, my attention was grabbed by the title, but after reading it several times I found it to be really illuminating. I had to do some background research on the British transportation of convicts to Australia, and it made me contextualize the chapter better. The fact that most robberies were sentenced for a 7 year transportation and at the time many people were economically struggling with the industrializing world. I see parallels with flaws in our legal system with the faults detailed within this paper. Additionally, I see similarities between why people got tattoos then and why people get tattoos now … to process emotions! Across cultures, it becomes evident that tattoos represent an aspect of your personality. It is so common for people to get tattoos after enduring trauma, or a specific life event; which is also observed in the article.

I felt the first four chapters of our book thoroughly explored the origins of tattoo practice and the variety of functions tattooing has played in different cultures. Overall, I found that this text places a lot of emphasis on specific word choice and the origins of the word / the latin meaning. To me, this hasn’t been something I’ve thought a lot about (how analyzing word choice may reveal how ancient societies were communicating). 

A pattern I noticed throughout readings was that regardless of culture / location, tattoos have generally had a negative connotation attached to them / associated with uncivilized barbarians. To a certain extent, this belief that tattoos are problematic and are associated with barbarians is still prevalent today – people still believe now that tattoos are associated with troublemakers / gangs / crimes. I found it interesting that Greeks had an aversion to decorative tattoos, as they associated them with barbarians. I thought it was interesting that in our western culture, which historically has associated the classic societies with prestige and knowledge, also contains an element of aversion. 

This text made me think about how arguably humans have an innate desire to retaliate / seek revenge on others that have wronged them, specifically when the crime violates their moral compass. This is something I saw throughout the readings, where the name of the crime committed was tattooed on the criminal’s forehead. This reminds me how some people slash the tires of their significant others when they are betrayed or graffiti their car with “CHEATER” in order to humiliate. I always find it interesting when I notice how human emotions and how we deal with human emotions really haven’t changed over time. 

Overall, I felt that these collection of readings provided a solid foundation on the beginning of tattooing and a general overview of the functions tattoos have played over time.