In Soviet Russia, Air Go On YOU!
The default title provided for Case blogs is “My Thoughts on the Discourse.” However, discourse is less about “My Thoughts” than it is about “Your Thoughts”, and therefore body modifications present problems for workers.
Philosopher Michel Foucault has this to say about discourse: “Western thought has seen to it that discourse be permitted as little room as possible between thought and words. It would appear to have ensured that to discourse should appear merely as a certain interjection between speaking and thinking; that it should constitute thought, clad in its signs and rendered visible by words or, conversely, that the structures of language themselves should be brought into play, producing a certain effect of meaning. …discourse is really only an activity, of writing in the first case, of reading in the second and exchange in the third. This exchange, this writing, this reading never involve anything but signs. Discourse thus nullifies itself, in reality, in placing itself at the disposal of the signifier.”
What he has (ironically) used a very dense piece of text to say is that all discourse is ultimately reliant on the second party to impart meaning. I do not have my copy of The Name of the Rose with me at Case, but there’s a passage in it about how a book has no value until it is opened and read, that until then it is merely ink on paper. While some (rather pretentious, in my opinion) writers such as Butler and Nabokov seem to take delight in the idea that a reader who is unwilling to decipher their complex layers of meaning is unworthy to share in their ideas, I agree with Foucault and Eco in the position that discourse relies on comprehension and further believe that, therefore, accessibility is essential for discourse.
What does any of this have to do with tattoos? Well, if the nature of discourse relies on the second party, then body mods cannot be put into terms of a “broadcast” of one’s identity. Rather, a modification in plain view is actually an initiation of a dialogue with each and every person who sees it. The mod – a tattoo of an animal, a bridge piercing, or obviously intentional scarring, for examples – was probably put there for a particular purpose. However, the viewer cannot know the purpose unless a more literal dialogue is initiated for that purpose. For the vast majority of people a modded individual encounters, such a dialogue will not happen. Therefore, the meaning of the mod rests solely in the judgment of the viewer.
This has serious implications for daily life. I’ve had modded friends gripe to me about “intolerant” bosses who don’t respect their decisions to pierce or tattoo themselves and insist that piercings be removed and all ink covered before one’s shift. However, in the business world, moreso than other facets of our lives, it is of utmost importance to eliminate ambiguity, and thus means of discourse are tightly regulated. Contract law legislates specific and rigid meanings for a given word or phrase, personal matters are expected to be dealt with elsewhere, and dress codes are enforced. Certain apparel has been deemed by consensus to belong to various types of business, in the interests of being functional and of not offending anyone via form rather than function. Body mods, being an inherently indistinct medium of discourse, conflict with the goals of business.
Comments
Posted by: Debra Lynn
Posted on: September 23, 2007 04:50 PM
I like how you made your pictures show up without clicking! How do you do that?
I also like how you ALWAYS have a book to reference, no matter what we may be discussing!!!
Why didn't you bring you library with you to Case?
You don't seem to have a definitive ending... did it get cut off?
And I don't understand the deliberate misspelling in your title... but is that your point maybe?
Also, I am curious... I have never heard "mod" used as an abbreviation for "Modification." Where did you get this from?