Introduction
When one mentions body modification, more often than not the first idea that comes to mind is a surgical process. Tattoos are body modifications that involve one inking any part of their body. Tattoos have been in existence for ages and have only become an urban trend quite recently especially with the spread of pop culture. While the popularity of tattoos is becoming ostensible in the recent times, those with the inking may understand rather too well the effects that come with it. Most often than not, people talk about the physical effects that tattoos may have on the individual. However, besides the obvious physical effects that tattoos have on an individual, the social impacts of the same cannot be ignored. Studies have shown that people with tattoos tend to face substantial amount of discrimination especially in the work place. The discriminations are premised on the stereotypes associated with the perception created by having tattoos include the casualness of the same. However, while tattoos may portray a particular image in the professional circles, it is quite appropriate that people ought not be judged by their ink but based on the substance they bring on the table.
The Cultural Significance of Tattoos
The history of tattoos shows that the body modification may bear some essential cultural ties for some individuals. Others bear some symbolic religious codes to the wearer. For instance, Asian Pacific people wear tattoos as a cultural indication of their coming to age (Deragon). Besides, some occupations also used tattoos symbolically as coded ways of communication. According to Johnna, World War I sailors used tattoos to identify bodies (Johnna) before it quickly spread to people who hang at the seaports such as sailors. However, it is prudent to note that in most cases, tattoos often tell about the life of an individual. They tell about their beliefs and experiences in ways only they understand. For example, a Christian woman may choose to tattoo a crucifix on her wrist to imply her Christian faith. Besides, others tattoo important quotes on themselves as well as images with deeper meanings. While all these are inscriptions made on the body in a rather painless process (less painful than before), it is rather perceptible that tattoos are a way of expression for the individual especially if done outside the cultural space. Tattoos may also be a sign of creatively expressing oneself. Davidson (135), states that the right to expression is "inked" in the constitution and as such tattoos are just a visual form of expression of the values and wishes of the person wearing them. Arp (180) asserts that the autonomy guaranteed in the constitution guarantees an individual the right to decide what they do with their freedom of expression. Nevertheless, it is judicious to state that despite the fact that tattoos underscore the right of an individual to express themselves in any means including visually, people who wear tattoos still get discriminated upon in various settings especially in the occupational and professional fields.
Tattoo Discrimination in the Workplace
In her article "Tattoos at Work: Can a Company Ban Them?" Beth Deragon describes one of the most common places that individuals face discrimination for their tattoos – the work place. She gives a typical example of two individuals who go to seek a job at the same company and how one of them loses the position because of a frivolous inking on rather 'insignificant' parts of the body in line with the job she applied. Despite the obvious fact that the lady felt it right to express her faith on her body, Joe (the employer) does not seem to look beyond the image that is portrayed by having an inking on one's body. This is a typical case of stereotypical discrimination against people with tattoos. Devoid of the reason behind the tattoo. In the work place, the image and appearance of an employee matters. This explains why some institution to go to lengths including imposing dress codes and even having uniforms for their staff. Some employers require that their employees get rid of their body piercings and cover up tattoos with clothing or makeup. The conservative ways applied by the companies when passing the rules against tattoos and other body modifications is perhaps one of the means through which they protect their image. However, according to Crawford and Harrison (227), the issue is mostly not about the tattoo but the position and how easy it is to cover up. However, most tattoos are made for creative purposes that people would like to show off and as such are placed in visible areas. Crawford and Harrison also assert that companies often associate tattoos with rebellion. In this regards, Wallop implies that tattoos bring a different kind of vibe in the workplace altogether. He states that several psychological studies have proven that the inking are associated with risk-taking behaviors. Besides, many employers are appalled by the idea that tattoos may in some way scare away the customers due to the negative perceptions linked with them.
The Need for Change in Understanding Tattoos
It is quite definite that the number of people getting tattoos is increasing by the day with Wallop suggesting that there are probably more people with tattoos in the city than in any another place in the country (Wallop). However, the fact that more people are getting tattoos does not mean that they are getting more acceptance in the work place. While tattoos are seen as a freedom of expression and a right to opinion which is guaranteed in the constitution, it is quite ostensible that the discrimination against people with tattoos is not a matter that is being addressed adequately. It is obvious that there are several laws passed against discrimination against people with disabilities, race, or gender, but the right of people with tattoos is not covered. Glen and Gray (608) state that employers who choose not to hire people with tattoos are often acting within their rights especially in regards to protecting the image of the company. There are no existing laws that disallow discrimination against people with any body modifications including tattoos and piercings. It is prudent to note, however, that there have been grass root efforts to ensure that people with body art, piercings, and other forms of body modifications are classified as the minority or protected classes. However, as long as the rights of the companies remain and the laws that prohibit discrimination against people with tattoos are not laid down, it is quite obvious that people with body modifications will continue facing the reverberation of having tattoos and other forms of body art.
Promoting Acceptance and Change
Arp suggests that the growth in the number of people having body art is likely to increase the acceptance of tattoos within the mainstream professional dome. Tattoos should no longer be taken as a sign of rebellion but a sign of creativity on the bearer's part. However, it seems quite apposite that equal rights are accorded to everyone irrespective of their body modifications. Deragon highlights the fact that discrimination based on the body art (in the context of the two individuals that sought a job), may escalate into another angle of criticism. In this case, for instance, Joe may be mistaken to have picked the man over the lady based on gender stereotypes. Besides, in a case where the tattoo may bear cultural symbolism, it is prospective that the employer may seem to have based their reason on cultural stereotypes. In this regards, it is apparent that the discrimination against people with tattoos is one that would not only require a consideration of the company brand and image, but also a rigorous assessment on the meanings behind them to ascertain the story behind it. In fact, Arp (49) ascertains that most cases involving discrimination against people with body markings are often tied with other subjects such as gender and sexuality. Moule describes this aspect as unintentional bias (33). However, on the other hand, Moule states that it is a high time that people became more receptive of the changing times especially those that are associated with personal choices and expressions if we are to realize substantial development. He states that being that biases and prejudices are socially constructed, it would be quite appropriate if the margins surrounding the issue of tattoos are broken just like many stereotypes associated with racism have been debunked. Besides, Moule implies that a critical look at the biases and prejudices may just debunk certain perceptions associated with them and as such help in beating the negative perceptions associated with tattoos. In this light, it is rather apparent that there is a surgical need for change of public perception directed towards tattoos and body markings.
Conclusion
In conclusion, it is quite obvious that tattoos have evolved over the years. They bear certain significance to the people who wear them. The number of people who have body markings has tremendously grown and as such it is evident that there is a likelihood of them joining the mainstream lifestyle. Tattoos are usually a means of expression regardless of the association the message it bears. However, people with tattoos face more than just the biological risks associated with them. They also face the likelihood of discriminatory rules passed by institutions where they seek employment. Many companies are not willing to hire people with body markings and as a result a large number of people are left out in unemployment despite their skill levels and willingness to work. Besides, it is prudent to note that despite the fact that there is an outright discrimination against people with tattoos, there are no laws that protect the rights of this growing population. Institutions, on the other hand, argue that they are within their rights to ban tattoos and piercings within the work place especially as a bid to protect the company image. Nevertheless, perhaps a rethink of the perceptions associated with tattoos would go a long way in saving the millions of people who are now visiting parlors for the inking through legislation on tattoo discrimination. This would not only increase a more tolerant working environment, but probably increase the working force as a remedy towards progressive development.
Works Cited
Top of Form
Arp, Robert. Tattoos: Philosophy for Everyone : I Ink, Therefore I Am. Malden, MA: Wiley- Blackwell, 2012. Internet resource.
DAVIDSON, DEBORAH. Tattoo Project. S.l.: CANADIAN SCHOLARS PRESS, 2017. Print.
Deragon, Beth A. “Tattoos at Work: Can a company ban them?” New Hampshire Business Review. 3 April 2014: 24.
Deragon, Beth A. Tattoos at Work: Can a Company ban them?
Glenn, Cheryl, and Loretta S. Gray. The Hodges Harbrace Handbook. , 2017. Print.
Healing in the Workplace: A Spiritual Guide to Coping with Work Issues. West Bow Pr, 2015. Print.
Johnna, A. “Ink Inc. Tattoos are Taboos no longer.” Pittsburg Post-Gazette. 15 August 2005.
Moule, Jean. "Understanding unconscious bias and unintentional racism: acknowledging our possible biases and working together openly is essential for developing community in our schools."
Wallop, Harry. “Tattoos bring a new form pf body language to the office.” FT.com. 17 October 2006.
Wessel, Harry. “Taboos of Tattoos in the Workplace.” Tribune Business News. 28 May 2007.
Bottom of Form
