The Power of Ink- analysis
The controversial issue of tattoos and whether or not they are a “sign of deviance” or just a “fashion statement” was raised by Helen Day in her Street Beat blog, “The Power of Ink” (25/3/15). Appealing to her regular blog readers and those who may be interested in tattoos, Day contends that “the deviant nature of the tattoo has faded” and it is no longer seen as a sign of rebellion but rather a sign of fashion. Opening her blog with a historical perspective on tattoos as a form of identifying, Day reveals that for centuries, tattoos were used to “mark the deviant and the incarcerated”, positioning readers to understand that tattoos indicated “ownership” or “control” by someone with power. Readers, not wanting to be seen as someone’s property, could rethink their attitude towards having a tattoo as such dehumanising would go against most people’s morality, particularly if they contemplate the “concentration camps of World War II” and recall “the horror of this genocide” which is clearly linked to the “indelible cruelty” on so many arms. Older readers who would remember the war, or stories about it from their parents, might therefore concur with Sam de Brito’s book title, “No tattoos before you’re thirty” as they would have similar recommendations for their own children. Fearing that their children may do permanent damage to themselves, parents may even be inclined to purchase this book in the hope that it will have helpful hints on how to eradicate youthful rebellion. Day concludes this section of her blog by indicating that tattoos were closely linked to reducing human beings to “property and machine”. This is through the dehumanising when tattoos used to mean that people were a slave/ property of someone. Further on, Day states that from the 1990’s tattoo parlours were set up in “every Australian shopping strip”. This was used by young women who “dared to defile” their femininity. This has now become redundant since the British...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document