Re: Modifying the Body (Was Mutilations, Tattos, etc.)

mike shupp (ms44278@HUEY.CSUN.EDU)
Tue, 16 Jul 1996 21:40:29 -0700

On Wed, 17 Jul 1996, John McCreery wrote:

> >I will note, too, for the record that I am not at all satisfied with the
> >simple claim that BMODs have something to do with asserting identities. As
> >Michael Schudson (in _Advertising: The Uneasy Persuasion_, p. 157) notes
> >in relation to consumer goods, "It will not do to hang everything on on
> >this 'identity' argument by itself. It explains too much, I think, and
> >therefore too little. It is exactly the kind of argument by sociologists
> >that rightly raises the hackles of historians. It is notoriously difficult
> >to make such an argument historically specific." There speaks a man with
> >uncommon good sense. Claims about "identities" are at best starting points
> >for further analysis. Shall we proceed?

Just a question. Ever notice that when someone a military-related
tattoo, say a Marine Corps fouled anchor, it is taken for granted he
has served in that branch of the military and has a "right" to wear
that tattoo? Intuitively, it seems that anyone without that
background would have to be pretty durn sick in the skull to get
such a tattoo.

I wouldn't reject _all_ the idea that tattoos have some link to
one's sense of indentity.

Mike Shupp
California State University, Northridge