The National Geographic Society views these foreign bodies or communities as unique and intriguing. They approach these cultures and their body modifications with respect. In so many of the portraits we have analyzed and websites we have looked at show these exotic bodies as strange and freakish because they are unlike those of Western society. I think National Geographic does a good job of observing these bodies’ differences and treating them as something different but GOOD.
The Marketplace’s “Inc.’s a bit more at ease with ink,” approaches tattoos and other body modifications as a growing norm in today’s society. It’s something they say is becoming more and more popular in the younger generations. It is slowly being accepted by older and younger crowds alike and unlike National Geographic’s view, something common and normal.
I think body piercing can be considered both exotic and a social norm. I think you have to look at the context of the piercing and body modifications to determine whether it is to be considered exotic. A tribal tattoo covering an entire arm on a foreign body can be seen as something exotic because of its differences from Western tattoos. But the same tattoo on a white body of someone who just thought it looked ‘cool’ and doesn’t have any meaning or significance behind it to me is not seen exotic. But with this it can be hard to determine who actually follows this lifestyle based on appearances. And a tribal tattoo versus a Texas star tattoo clearly shows how one can be seen as exotic and the other not.
2 comments:
I never thought about how National Geographic specifically illustrated these different groups. I like how you noticed that they are preserving the cultures and treating the groups with respect. That is a really good point! I just thought of it as separating the cultures. It contradicts the NPR report, because it doesn’t show the blending of cultures. I think people grow from exposure to different groups. National Geographic still separates the distinct groups and allows them to be labeled as “others,” which I don’t think is helping the “us” v. “them” problem.
The other point about some tattoos being exotic and some not is true to some extent. Some people may have a tattoo just because it is “cool.” Some people, on the other hand, may have strong feelings or some relation to the cultural practice that they are portraying. Some people, when you look at them, may completely look of one race. However, if you trace it back, they may be part that culture that they are representing with the tattoo, but you may not know it from just looking at them.
I think that in a way, Western tattoos are still seen as exotic to people, even though they are used so commonly and without specific community ties many times. It just depends on who is viewing the tattoos on which body. Some people do get tattoos without spiritual significance, and to them perhaps it is just an aesthetic choice, something to help them look "cool." But it's also interesting to look at that from the viewer's perspective as well. Since bodies are used as texts to communicate messages, even if the kid did not realize he was engaging in this representation, he would be communicating something to people who look at him. It all depends on the viewer's subject position. If a person who is spiritually body modified looked at him or her, they would read that kid's body as code for something similar, perhaps. Also, older generations would look at that practice as exotic and holding strong cultural meaning (like being associated with gangs or other outcast modern groups that older people associate with tattoos).
Post a Comment