The human body is perceived by the majority as a thing of beauty, as being in the image of God. However, there is no common agreement on what is actually beautiful. Different parts of the world all view the body from different perspectives, what one part of the world considers to be the height of beauty might be perceived as the depths of depravity by the rest of mankind. Tribes in Developing countries have a clearly different perspective of the human form to the, so-called, Developed countries. While it is normal for Westerners to cover their body in clothing, there are tribes where it is only the prostitutes who habitually wear clothes.
At A Glance Author fuzi Contact [email protected] IAM fuzi When N/A Since long before the Romans arrived on British shores, the Britons wore clothes. This had more to do with our climate than anything else at that time, however anthropologists have produced theories on why mankind first started to wear clothes. Various religions have thrown up theories that man wears clothes out of modesty, which might be the case now but is highly unlikely to be the case for prehistoric man; warmth, food, and shelter would have been his foremost concerns. The anthropologists provide a more convincing argument, they believe that early man started wearing clothes to demonstrate his social position, to acquire a mate, or show his strength/ skill. For example, if he had successful slain a woolly mammoth, he might wear the skin to show his skill. The anthropologists believe the loss of hair came from the wearing of clothes, rather than the other way round which is what the church would have us believe. "The tendency for beauty of clothing to be accepted as a substitute for the beauty of the body" (source: Ellis: 1901-10) . Western societies have worn full-body coverings for so long that appreciation of the body is almost a shameful thing - an extreme case being a foot fetishist, who worships the beauty of the human foot yet is treated as though he was a disgusting animal for doing so.
This brings us to the question of how is beauty represented, and who finds it beautiful. Art has always reflected what cultures consider to be beauty. Artworks from a particular era will all present a similar image of what is beauty, the person commissioning the painting, the subject, will be portrayed in a way that makes them fit in with the current perception of beauty. In the seventeenth century, large and curvy women were considered beautiful. One of the most common theories on this is that they were considered beautiful because their size represented wealth. But these perceptions change with the culture. In his book 'The Quest for Human Beauty', Julian Robinson suggests that the popular perception of beauty is always based on the most dominant feature in that culture. For example, a tribe where the women all have large breasts will be of the opinion that large breasts are more attractive than small breasts. The reverse would be true in an area where women gener ally have small breasts. Robinson writes that with time comes the notion of that particular aspect of beauty being the right, and possibly only, version of beauty. "The notion of human beauty is a reflection of cultural perceptions and inherited ideas of aesthetics". While the Western world is constantly redefining what is its beauty through clothes and other such techniques, the actual body is almost left alone. Cosmetic surgery is employed by a growing number of women who believe they'll be more beautiful if their nose is a certain shape, or they have fuller lips. Women in the Western world are forever being told that it doesn't matter what size they are, and then endure having relentless images of stick-thin models forced on them. Cosmetic surgery is considered by the majority of feminist factions, as well as other groups, including some medical professions, to be "a bad thing". It alters the body that God gave the individual, it also demonstrates an apparently u nhealthy desire to conform to some mystical norm. If cosmetic surgery is considered evil, imagine how other forms of body modification are perceived, even in their natural environment.
Michael Hardin in Fashion Theory suggests that the West's disapproval of tattooing is based in the Bible. He quotes Leviticus 19.28 NIV to say "Do not cut your bodies for the dead or put tattoo marks on yourselves". Also quoted is 2 Corinthians 6.16 NIV, "For we are the temple of the living God". This is point taken to a different level by Samuel Steward, previously an English professor, now a tattoo artist. He suggests that "[i]n the Talmud and elsewhere it has been claimed that Christ...tattooed the magic word for Jehovah (Yahweh) on his thigh", he adds that in 787C.E. Pope Hadrian 1 declared a ban against the practice. Christianity had a very real problem accepting that their beloved Christ might have had a connection to such a "barbarous practice", something that was only practised by the savage tribes, unyet touched by the destructive hand of Christianity. Since then, tattooing has had a bad reputation in the Western culture. It was something that only sailors, co nvicts and prostitutes dabbled in, that was how it stayed until very recently in Western history.
It is the tattooing of women which Hardin focuses on. Throughout history and art, it has always been the female who has been the object, while the gaze has been male. More restrictions were placed on women than have ever been placed on men. Hardin raises the (feminist) idea that modern women are beginning to tattoo themselves to reclaim their bodies from this male gaze. He suggests that by having tattoos the women are putting something that can not be removed by the male and therefore prevents the male from being able to possess the woman. This takes a strong feminist view on the topic, a slightly more balanced version of this theory is that individuals get tattooed to be just that, individuals. By reclaiming their bodies from what they were given at birth they are making an attempt at being different. Not necessarily rebelling against the establishment, but making a point that they are not just a number, they do not belong to anyone and nobody is capable of owning t hem. This is almost the opposite of the Roman practice of tattooing their slaves in the same way that cattle were branded. There is a current trend of having bar codes tattooed on the body, this could be perceived as making a statement about the way society treats its members, however it is more likely a whimsical idea that has caught on.
Robinson quotes Sir Kenneth Clark from 'The Nude' (1956) to say "by long habit we do not judge the body as a living organism, but as a design". In the West, the current ideal of beauty is young, slender, athletic, with a particular type of face. Old age is viewed with the same repulsion as obesity. It is this point that was being made by Clark. In other cultures, where it is not the body itself that is the object of beauty but what has been done to it, age, size, shape are all irrelevant to the perception of beauty.
Using the findings from the polls on this site, I feel a lot is revealled about the type of person in the West who adopts others cultures forms of beautification. 'Coming to terms with my body' was the main inspiration given for being modded, along with 'aesthetic reasons' as the primary reason. The vast majority of these people have either obtained a degree or are currently studying for one. They also claim that the two most common reactions to their mods are morbid fascination ('how much did that hurt?') and misunderstanding ('why?'). From personal experience I feel confident in suggesting that the morbid fascination came from broader minded - possibly more educated - people than those who reacted by asking 'why?'. It also seems to me that it's the younger generations that are curious about what has been done to the body. Eventually, the unavoidable question of why it was done will be asked, but it tends to come after inquiries into what the procedure was and how pai nful it was.
Another issue raised by these polls is the idea that to be modded there must be something wrong with you mentally. 'Have you ever suffered from a psychiatric illness, including depression?' produced a response of 57% either having suffered from something when younger or still suffering. This could be taken to mean that people only modify their body because they are mentally unhinged, it could also be taken to mean that because there is a 'problem' with the individual they have explored other routes in an attempt to deal with what is wrong. Scarification is considered by nearly 60% of the respondents as being a form of expression, these people are more than likely the same ones who admitted that they have suffered from a psychiatric illness. Scarification, cutting, self-harm, self-mutilation and all the other names by which this is known is considered by an astounding proportion of people, even within the bodmod community, to be 'bad'. It's likely to be the circumstances under which most of the 'mutilation' is conducted - the stereotypical teenager making a cry for help - which commands such disregard for a technique that, if done well for decorative reasons, can be more beautiful than any tattoo. Society is unlikely to ever accept this form of modification as it is a reminder that what we do is permanent, and also that we are living organisms not merely a design.
In the modern Western world beauty is becoming even more difficult to define than it ever has been. More extreme influences are being drawn in for a wider ranges of sources for the alteration of Western bodies. Slowly, the 'establishment' is accepting that they might not be right with their definitions, they are not the only culture on this Earth and simply because they cover the majority of their bodies the majority of the time does not make them more civilised than any other culture. If anything, clothes have spawned an entire culture of bigoted and conceited fools. It also assisted in the creation of recognised pornography - in cultures where the breasts and genitals are on permanent display the mental focus of sex is moved away from these areas and focused towards other areas, including the cultural modifications. As new generations move through and beyond, opinions and reactions towards modification should become more tolerant and accepting, and maybe they will be welcomed into the main emphasis on what is considered beautiful. At the moment, there will still be reactions of "Don't you realise that's permanent?" and "Why did you do something so stupid?", these reactions will always be there. There will always be ignorant and bigoted people in all social classes, generations and cultures, they are the true definition of ugly - incapable of looking beyond what is on the surface at what lies beneath.
BIBLIOGRAPHYBrain, Robert, The Decorated Body,
Davis, Fred, Fashion, Culture and Identity, University of Chicago Press, 1992
Ellis, Havelock, Studies in the Psychologies of Sex,
Lurie, Alison, The Language of Clothes, Bloomsbury, 1981
Polhemus, Ted, Street style, Thames and Hudson, 1994
Polhemus, Ted, Style Surfing, Thames and Hudson, 1996
Robinson, Julian, The Quest for Human Beauty, W. W. Norton and Company, 1998
Rouse, Elizabeth, Understanding Fashion, BSP Professional Books, 1989
Steward, Samuel, Bad Boys and Tough Tattoos: A Social History of Tattooing with Gangs, Sailors and Street-Corner Punks, Harrington Park Press, 1990Fashion Theory, vol 2, issue 1, pp 3-24:
Technoflesh, or "Didn't That Hurt?", Karmen MacKendrickFashion Theory, vol 3, issue 1, pp 81-108:
Mar(k)ing the Objected Body: A Reading of Contemporary Female Tattooing, Michael Hardinwww.Perforations.com
www.BMEzine.com
www.ambient.on.ca/bodmod/mutilate.html
www.ambient.on.ca/bodmod/why.html
spc.bodymodification.com
www.templeofpain.da.ru