flow

This is to certify that the
thesis entitled

SECRET INK:
UNDERSTANDING CONTEMPORARY
AMERICAN TATTOO PRACTICES

presented by

DEREK JOHN ROBERTS

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for the

MA. degree in Sociology

 

 

are;

 

Major Professor’s Signature

”(fly/0‘6

Date

MSU is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Employer

 

 

PLACE IN RETURN Box to remove this checkout from your record.
TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5/08 KlProleccEPresICIRCIDateDue indd

SECRET INK:
UNDERSTANDING CONTEMPORARY AMERICAN TATTOO PRACTICES

By

Derek John Roberts

A THESIS

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

MASTER OF ARTS
Sociology

2008

ABSTRACT

SECRET INK:
UNDERSTANDING CONTEMPORARY AMERICAN TATTOO PRACTICES

By
Derek John Roberts
Over the past twenty years, there has been a significant increase in the number of
Americans with tattoos. The majority of this growth can be attributed to an increasing
acceptability of tattoos among younger individuals and, increasingly, the middle class.
Not only has who gets tattooed changed, but the reasons for participating in this behavior
have also changed. Nonetheless, tattoos remain non-normative for the majority of
American society—a fact known to new tattooees. I argue that the expansion of tattoos
can best be understood in terms of cohort replacement theory. Moreover, in combining
this with a dramaturgical analysis, I will ultimately show how people with tattoos, as well
as those considering tattoos, manage the impression of their tattoos while negotiating

mainstream culture.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................... 1
Background ........................................................................................ 3
Critiquing Claims of Mainstream Acceptance ................................................ 5
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK .................................................................. 7
METHODS .......................................................................................... 11
DATA ................................................................................................. 14
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS .................................................................... 19
Cohort Replacement ................................................................................ 19
Dramang ......................................................................................... 24
CONCLUSION ...................................................................................... 30

REFERENCES ...................................................................................... 33

iii

INTRODUCTION

My interest in tattoos began early, as I distinctly remember a conversation with a
childhood friend about the topic around the age of ten that dealt with the tattoos I would
be getting as an adult. At the time, tattoos were a way for me to represent things such as
nationality and where I grew up. My friend and I were both children of working class
parents and lived in working class neighborhoods. It is hard to pinpoint the actual
motivation for this interest; the burgeoning hip hop culture and the many men in our area
that were bold enough to permanently alter their skin for the love of our much maligned
city most likely influenced and fueled my passion.

I had been socialized to see tattoos as abnormal, which seems to be the case for a
majority of American society. Still, estimates on the number of Westerners with tattoos
generally range from one in ten to one in five (Kosut 2006; Stirn et a1 2006). Despite the
fact that millions have been inked, tattoo culture remains a distinct subculture. The
existence of a tattoo culture, however, does not mean that all people who have been
tattooed belong to the culture. There is, indeed, a difference between people who have
tattoos and tattooed people (Bell 1999). People who have tattoos usually have one or
maybe a couple tattoos strategically placed on areas of their bodies that are easily hidden.
Tattooed people, on the other hand, get ink that is visible to others. Bold tattoos on lower
arms, hands and/or necks are common for tattooed people. To be a tattooed person, one
must be committed to their tattoos, which may include labels such as “freak” from
coworkers, fiiends and family. Tattooed people readily and regularly display their tattoos

to the world-- to cover one’s tattoos would be to deny one’s true self. Though the number

of people who have tattoos has boomed, I argue that the number of tattooed people
remains relatively small.

The aim of this article is to better understand how and why people with tattoos—
who have no desire to be associated with the “freak show” that is tattoo culture (Bell
1999:56)— negotiate their status as tattooees and transition through mainstream society.
Considering the vast expansion of tattoos in America and the rest of the West since the
late 19803 and early 1990s (Rosenblatt 1997:300), the reluctance of sociologists to
investigate tattoos is noteworthy. Only recently has this become an issue of sociological
inquiry, putting the discipline well behind anthropology. While there has been a dramatic
shift in the attitudes and arguments put forth by academics concerning tattoos since the
recent tattoo boom began to unfold, by no means are the old attitudes disappearing from
the literature:

[D]espite. .. path-breaking analyses of tattooing as a contextual and negotiated

signifier of identity, sociological statements on the cultural use of tattoos in North

America ultimately (re)produce a conceptualization of the practice as contra-

normative. The symbiotic relationship between tattooing and illegal behaviour (or

otherwise unconventional lifestyles) still dominates in sociological research.

Sociologists prefer to study the subversive subcultural uses of tattooing.

(Atkinson 2004: 1 27)

This quote exposes the academic schism that has formed around this phenomenon. On
the one side, researchers portray tattoos negatively by focusing on deviance and mental
disorders. On the other, scholars view tattoos as positively contributing to identity
formation and fashion.

Even more important than the ideological split within the academic community is

the one forming within society. For many young Westerners, the tattoo has taken on a

decidedly different meaning than for previous generations. The tattoo has “undergone

dramatic redefinition” (Irwin 2001 :50) and has shifted from a form of deviance to an
acceptable form of expression-- at least as far as the youth are concerned. One
contributing factor of this youthful shift is the media, which legitimates tattoos by
positively portraying the tattooed “lionized public figures” (Kosut 2006:1038) that many
young people admire, such as actors, musicians and athletes. At the same time, however,
the media is critical of average people with tattoos. I argue that this mixed message
contributes to the seemingly contradictory situation wherein individuals use tattoos for
identity expression and formation, all the while keeping the existence of their tattoos
secret from the general public. By applying the theory of cohort replacement (Ryder
1965; Firebaugh 1989), I will attempt to explain this societal transition. Moreover, in
combining this with a drarnaturgical analysis (Gofl‘man 1959; 1967), I will ultimately
show how people with tattoos, as well as those considering tattoos, manage the

impression of their tattoos while negotiating mainstream culture.

Background

Inked bodies have existed in geographically diverse societies throughout history, but
tattoos have long been considered taboo in Western societies such as the US (Sanders
1989). Though tattoos were a fad among Europe’s aristocrats, sailors and soldiers in the
late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, they became unacceptable by the 19205,
leading to academic research framing tattoos as deviant or symbolic of mental health
disorders (Ferguson-Rayport et a1 1955; Post 1966; Sanders 1989; Steward 1990). Not
only were tattoos linked with deviance, it was argued that the physical act of getting a
tattoo would absolutely cause future deviance (Post 1966; Steward 1990). Some recent

articles (Carroll & Anderson 2002; Brooks et a] 2003; Stim et a1 2006; Wohlrab et al

2007) still seek to convince readers of a link between tattoos and both mental health
problems and (sexual) deviance.

Given this history of negative attitudes, it might come as a bit of a surprise that
the number of people with tattoos has been on the rise, and it is the middle class that is at
the heart of the “mainstreaming of tattoo” (Kosut 2006:1045). There are numerous
explanations for the recent embracing of tattoos among this group. Some scholars have
argued that tattoos can be viewed as tools of self completion and permanent reminders of
one’s true identity in an ever changing world (Rosenblatt 1997; Carroll & Anderson
2002; Langman 2003). According to Shannon Bell (1999257), to get a tattoo is “to live in
truth for eternity.” In an era when one’s professional or marital identity might very
readily change with the ebbs and flows of life, the ability of tattoos to serve as an
unchangeable reminder of the true self makes them highly desirable.

For many other scholars, the media has played the pivotal roll in the spread of tattoo.
According to Mary Kosut (2006: 1043), one explanation for the recent rise in the
acceptability of tattoos is that current media portrayals often separate the art of tattoo
from its working class roots: “popular print discourses have contributed to the erasure of
early images and meanings of tattoo by recreating tattoo as a middle-class cultural
practice with inherent aesthetic value.” Demello (1995:42) echoed this sentiment when
she argued that the media has made tattoos more acceptable by:

first focusing their articles around a select group of middle-class individuals, most

of whom have relatively small, inoffensive tattoos; by second, denying all of

those who do not fit this category the right to be represented, except as the absent

unit of comparison; and third, by centering the discussion around ideas which are
very popular outside of the tattoo community.

According to Demello, the media often purposefully ignore those who were tattooed for
the old reasons, such as drunkenness or machismo. Instead, she has argued that the media
now focus on things such as the amount of preparation or financial resources needed for a
good tattoo. By portraying tattoos as a serious investment as opposed to an intoxicated
spur of the moment waste of money, the media have made it so that tattoos “can be

appreciated and understood even by the non-tattoo wearing, middle-class public” (ibid).

Critiquing Claims of Mainstream Acceptance
Even though tattoos have been adopted by many middle class Americans, there is still a
question about the role of tattoos in American culture (Demello 1995). The old way of
looking at tattoos (i.e., socially and criminally deviant) maintains its hold for many in this
society. The pairing of the rapid expansion of tattoos against this old way of thinking has
resulted in “the creation of a sort of cultural war... over the definitions and meanings of
tattoos in society” (Irwin 2001 :54). One’s personal orientation towards tattoos aside, the
key issue at hand becomes whether or not America as a whole now accepts tattoos. Many
believe that tattoos have become so widespread as to be considered mainstream (Demello
1995; Deschesnes et al 2006b; Kosut 2006), but is this the case? I argue it is not.
Americans are often cautioned about the ramifications for going too far with
tattoos. A recent edition of one popular magazine contains an advertisement for a tattoo
removal cream. In the ad, a young lady describes how a tattoo on her back, which was
visible in her wedding dress, started a family feud that ultimately led to her divorce. The
ad asserts that tattoos are now merely skin-deep mistakes and that tattooed readers should

“let them see you, not your tattoo.” Similarly, another popular magazine article reported

that: “in the past few years, the garish body-art trend has taken on an increasingly
negative connotation as it has become a signifying mark of street gangs and prison
inmates” (Sayre 2007:56). By labeling tattoos as garish, outlandish and having negative
connotations, the author suggests that tattoos are still deviant. Moreover, the author warns
that many potential employers, including the US Marines and numerous police forces,
find tattoos to be unprofessional.

Examples of negative portrayals of tattoos abound throughout other popular
media outlets, as well. One example of tattoos being presented as unprofessional can be
found in a popular sitcom about a working class couple. During one episode, the main
male character met a married couple at his local gym. Both the husband and wife were
tattooed. When the main character introduced the tattooees to his wife, the tattooed
couple began talking about their tattoos. Afier the tattooed woman asked the main
character’s wife if she had any tattoos, the wife responded: “Tattoos? No. I have a job,
5000. . .” The message is unmistakable: respectable people do not get tattooed.
Representations such as this indicate that there is no way to know what will become of
the tattoo fad’s trajectory. Assumptions of future normalization should be received with

skepticism (Kosut 2006).

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

It should be noted that I am a tattooed person and that I had already spent many hours in
a variety of tattoo shops prior to starting this research, which prevented me from
beginning the process completely void of any prior assumptions. Nonetheless, I
attempted to enter the field with an unassuming agenda. I began collecting data with a
few ideas of where the data might lead, but I was not committed to any single research
question. Indeed, what I first thought might be an interesting study on tattoo artists
ultimately turned into a project about first time tattooees as well as other people with
tattoos.

Just as I did not enter the field with a particular question in mind, I also did not
have any single theoretical framework in place until I began writing. Although scholars
following the interpretivist tradition may be better equipped to analyze data from the
onset, the temptation to mold data to a given theory can be overwhelming. Utilizing one’s
favorite theory to interpret a set of data can be a meaningful scholarly exercise, but I
would argue that the ultimate goal of any research should be to allow the data to speak
for itself (J orgensen 1989; Wainwright 1997). Although abstaining from theorizing until
the latter days of this research project may have made it a more difficult and lengthy task,
it ultimately helped me to compile a theoretical approach that best explains what was
taking place in the shop and how this relates to American society at large.

One theory that helps to explain the growing number of tattoos among middle
class individuals and the new way of perceiving tattoos is cohort replacement. Cohort
replacement theorists explain social change by focusing on differences between younger

and older (birth year) cohorts. Cohort replacement theory cannot explain all methods of

social change, such as change that sweeps across all age ranges in a society (Firebaugh
1989). On the contrary, cohort replacement theory explains social change that occurs via
“intercohort differentiation” (Ryder 19652853). In other words, cohort replacement is
only appropriate when clear and sizeable differences in perceived acceptability of and
participation in a given behavior exist between cohorts. Furthermore, it is the newer
cohorts that increasingly challenge existing norms and push for social change. Over time,
each new cohort becomes more and more accepting of the given behavior until society’s
norm has been effectively changed for all members of society. The cohort effect differs
fi'om the mellowing effect that comes with age. Regarding tattoos, the growing
acceptance of tattoos does not reflect a “change in the opinions of individuals,” but a
change in “population membership” (Firebaugh 1989:243). Those presently in the older
cohorts did not think positively about tattoos when they were younger only to grow out of
any fascination with tattoos as they matured. Rather, the vast majority of members
currently comprising the older cohorts have always been opposed to tattooing (Sanders
1989; Kosut 2006). For the purpose of this article younger cohorts will include
individuals under thirty years of age, middle-aged cohorts will include ages thirty to fifty-
four and older cohorts will consist of anybody older than fifty-five.

Tattoos seem to be crossing class boundaries and gaining acceptance among
younger cohorts. At the same time, however, the eldest members of society possessing
the majority of power are considered to be anti-tattoo and this contradiction ultimately
influences the manner in which new tattooees are tattooed. Therefore, a discussion of
contemporary tattoo practices should attempt to go beyond an analysis of cohort

replacement and attempt to explain the manner in which young tattooees negotiate this

conflict. 1 will use dramaturgy in my attempt to explain how young tattooees transition
through mainstream society. According to Erving Goffman (1959), social interactions can
best be understood by using a drarnaturgical approach. Just as an actor portrays a certain
character to his audience, so too does an individual play a role when interacting with
others. The dramaturgical “front” put forth by an individual is meant to protect his best
interest, which is ultimately to:

control the conduct of others, especially their responsive treatment of him. This

control is achieved largely by influencing the definition of the situation which the

others come to formulate, and he can influence this definition by expressing
himself in such a way as to give them the kind of impression that will lead them
to act voluntarily in accordance with his own plan. (ibid.:3-4)
Applied to the issue at hand, this statement suggests that the hidden location of one’s
tattoos ultimately allows him to influence how others perceive him. One of the “many
motives for trying to control the impression they receive” (ibid.:15) among new tattooees
that I will discuss below is their career.

The process of impression management, whereby people with tattoos regularly
prevent others from discovering their stigmatized tattoos, calls into question the tattoo’s
relationship with the tattooee’s identity. Tattoos are often deeply intertwined with one’s
identity, but there is a fine distinction between tattoos serving as an expression of one’s
identity and tattoos helping to form one’s identity. I argue that tattooed people could fall
into both categories, but that people with tattoos, such as those included in this study,
most likely fall into the former category. For example, a tattooee may get a small flag of
his/her home country on a deltoid. While this is an expression of national identity, the

tattoo itself does not automatically influence how others (or oneself) perceive the

individual, especially if the tattooee takes strides to prevent others from becoming aware

of the tattoo. In the words of Goffman (1964), people with tattoos “pass” as normal
members of society by keeping secret the existence of their stigma, or tattoo. Therefore,

the ink does not affect one’s social identity.

10

METHODS
I conducted research for this project in a medium sized, midwestern city. Following the
recommendations of previous tattoo researchers (Deschesnes et al 2006a), I decided that
it would be most beneficial to become a participant observer. Since most of the subjects
entered the shop only once or twice while I was in the field and our interactions were
fairly brief, I became what Gold (1958:221) termed an “observer-as-participant.” As an
observer-as-participant, there is greater access to a larger pool of potential subjects.
Participant observation also presents the opportunity to learn about previously unthought
of, albeit highly relevant, issues (Whyte 1955). However, the somewhat brief nature of
the interaction increases the chances of misunderstanding clients. In order to minimize
this, it was important to combine the method of informal conversations with observations
(Berg 2007). Gaining entree was an admittedly easy task, for I already had a relationship
with a local tattoo shop, where I was offered a job as a receptionist. The shop is close to a
large university, and although a large percentage of the shop’s clientele are university
students, it also draws customers from the surrounding areas. Clients regularly travelled
nearly 100 miles to visit the shop. This can be attributed to the shOp’s highly skilled
artists who are well respected in their field. The shop’s emphasis on sanitation and
professionalism is also an important feature that distinguishes it from other alternatives.
During the five months of data collection, I worked an average of ten to fifteen
hours per week. Working at the front counter enabled me to listen to many conversations
between tattooees and their fiiends. Moreover, I was able to probe deeper by engaging
tattoo clients in informal conversations as they waited for their tattoo appointments. On

average, these informal conversations (N = 34) lasted fifteen minutes. The conversations

11

were drawn fiom a convenience sample, because my receptionist duties precluded me
from being able to spend any length of time with potentially relevant clients during
extremely busy periods. However, I was able to observe and record noteworthy events
during these busy moments.

I quickly noticed that my fellow employees were rather uncomfortable with me
taking notes in the open, leading to regular conversations on the topic. One afternoon,
one of the piercers asked me with suspicion: “You gunna write all sorts of interesting,
dirty things about us today?” Moreover, I was regularly told which things I should or
should not include in my study. One counter person did not hesitate to tell me that it was
foolish to look at things such as whether or not clients bring moral support with them.
Given this level of concern, I decided that I should make every attempt to minimize my
researcher status. In an attempt to “avoid detracting from or interfering with the ordinary
relations and goings-on in the field” (Emerson et a1 1995:22), the conversations with
clients were neither recorded nor written at the time they took place. Rather, I was in the
habit of jotting down notes when nobody was around, while I was running an errand, or
when I was in the bathroom. Whereas the selections that are included in this article may
differ slightly from the actual conversations, the general spirit and point of each
conversation is effectively present.

I attempted to learn three key facts during each informal conversation. First, I
wanted to know why the client did or did not bring somebody with them. Second, I asked
what the client was getting tattooed and sought to understand any significance attached to
the design. Third, I inquired about the reason for the particular size and location of the

tattoo. Once I had obtained information about these points, I would simply let the

12

conversation run its course. Many conversations involved discussions about family
members. Socioeconomic aspirations were also an important topic. In addition to
providing me with data, these conversations more often than not had a calming effect on

those traversing the tattoo culture.

13

DATA

As a tattooed person, I have spent many hours being tattooed in various shops without
ever feeling the need to bring anybody along for moral support. I quickly realized this
was not the norm. Early in my research I began to notice a common thread among
customers: the vast majority brought fiiends or family along with them. Not only did the
supporting individuals enter the shop with the tattooees, they typically stayed with the
person getting the tattoo throughout the application process. This trend was especially
common for first time tattooees.

During one month, forty eight individuals came in for tattoos while I was
working. An additional thirty nine clients came in for tattoo consultations, though I only
consider those individuals who actually received a tattoo during a given visit to be people
who came in for tattoos. Tattoo consultations took multiple forms. First, some clients,
especially those desiring larger and more intricate pieces, needed to make a thirty minute
appointment with an artist. During this time, the artist would discuss the client’s desires
and options as well as draw a rough sketch of the tattoo. Second, some people came into
the shop without a specific tattoo idea in mind. Rather, they often posed generic questions
about the tattoo process and the shop’s pricing methods. Finally, many potential tattooees
walked into the shop without appointments but with specific designs in mind. When
possible, these individuals were introduced to an artist who specializes in the type of
tattoo the individual was interested in. Otherwise, shop personnel would take a copy of
their design back to an artist who was working. The artist provided a time and price

estimate that was then relayed to the client.

14

Among the forty eight tattooees, thirty two had at least one person accompany
them. Eleven of the sixteen clients who came alone had previously been tattooed, many
of them multiple times. There were also thirty nine tattoo consultations during this time
period, thirteen of which came alone. It is interesting to note that the ratio (one third) of
individuals coming alone and individuals coming with company was exactly the same for
both people getting tattooed and people merely being consulted. I will later show how
this calls into question clients’ stated reasons for bringing moral support.

After noticing the tendency for tattooees to bring moral support, a term often
invoked by clients and those accompanying them, I began to question tattooees about
their reasons for doing so. One young client said that she simply needed somebody to talk
to during the tattoo process. She claimed that the person was there in order to avoid
boredom, though most of clients I spoke with said they brought others along because they
felt uncomfortable entering the tattoo shop for the first time. Gina was a typical example
of such clients:

D: Did you have somebody with you for your first tattoo, too?

G: Yeah, I came with a guy friend the first time.

D: And Why’d you come with him?

G: He’s got a lot of tattoos, he’s got ‘em everywhere. And I wanted somebody

who’d been through it before to come with me because... I was intimidated!

Upon firrther inquiry, I found that there were two commonly stated reasons for
the intimidation. First, many clients claimed that they were afraid of physical pain.
Naomi came in with her sister-in-law and brother, as they were both previously tattooed
and were good sources of moral support. When she entered the shop, she was obviously

nervous and pacing. When I asked Naomi why she was so nervous, her sister-in-law

jumped in and said “She’s afraid of the pain.” Naomi confirmed her fear of pain and later

15

added that this fear played a roll in the selection of a suitable place on her body for her
tattoo: “Well I have a friend who has one on her neck and she said it didn’t hurt at all so
that’s why I chose the neck.” Even though Naomi said she chose the back of her neck
because it would not hurt, she also stated that her career goal of being a lawyer demanded
that she place the tattoo someplace where she could easily hide it. This led to questioning
whether it was pain that was the reason for her nervousness and need for moral support.
Other clients also altered their claims about fear of pain upon further questioning.

The other reason clients felt intimidated was a fear of the unknown. Most clients
had little or no previous experience with the tattoo culture prior to entering the shop.
Although they had seen tattooed athletes and celebrities on television and in movies, they
had few live encounters with tattooed people; the shop often represented the first real
opportunity to interact with tattooed people. In order to offset this unfamiliarity and.
discomfort, many clients brought people with tattoos for moral support. For example,
Eugene brought his friend, Tom, because Tom “has a tattoo already and has been through
it all already.”

Although many clients, like Naomi, claimed that it was merely a fear of pain that
caused them to bring fiiends and/or family, the data suggest that this is an insincere claim
meant to save face. If it was really a fear of pain that led clients to bring moral support,
then one would expect to find a clear distinction between the number of individuals who
came in for tattoos with support and the number who came in for tattoo consultations
with support. After all, if one is not getting a tattoo on a given day, there is little need to
be concerned with physical pain. There would be no need for moral support. However,

since clients were just as likely to bring support for a consultation as they were for an

16

actual tattoo, it is not likely that the clients were, in fact, afraid of pain. On the contrary, it
is my contention that it was the fear of and lack of comfort with tattoo culture, as
discussed by Eugene, that drove clients to bring support into the shop.

It is important to note that participants in my study primarily gave the same
motivations for getting tattooed, such as fashion and identity formation, as the subjects
found in the literature discussed above and that they rarely viewed their tattooing
experience as inherently wrong or deviant. Most tattooees, especially young ones, truly
felt that getting tattooed was a viable way to express one’s identity. I argue, therefore,
that the reason clients felt the need to bring moral support stems from their awareness of
tattoo’s low social standing. Even though they believed tattoos were acceptable for
themselves and significant others, respondents expressed a belief that society as a whole
still does not accept tattooed people and that being tattooed would likely lead to negative
sanctions in the firture, such as personal or professional discrimination. The same belief
that led tattooees to bring moral support also influenced their decisions regarding the
location of their tattoos. In order to help prevent future sanctions, tattooees chose
locations that are typically unseen in public. Such fear of negative sanctions in response
to tattoos is not unfounded; incidences of employer discrimination against tattooees have
increased in recent years (Baldas 2005; Jones 2005) and public opinion often supports
such discrimination (Mann 2005). Furthermore, media and career counselors regularly
warn against getting tattoos in order to avoid such problems (Smith 2005; Vogel 2007).
These facts support the notion that society is in a transitional period, wherein the older
and more powerful cohorts continue to oppose the youthful tattoo trend. In response,

clients felt the need to have a fiiend nearby, because they recognized that they were about

17

to cross the boundary of socially accepted behavior. Clients were keenly aware that
negative reprisals are more likely to come from older members of society than from
younger members. Generational differences regarding the acceptability of tattoos are
explained below using cohort replacement theory, whereas the methods utilized by
tattooees to negotiate social arenas dominated by older cohorts are flamed in a

drarnaturgical discussion.

18

ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS

Cohort Replacement

If cohort replacement theory is an appropriate explanation of modern tattooing, then one
would expect to find lower rates of tattooing among those over a certain age. Results of a
1989 poll indicated that 3% of the general population had at least one tattoo (Anderson
1992), while more recent studies have estimated the percentage of tattooed Americans to
be between ten and twenty percent (Whelan 2001; Kosut 2006; Stim et a1 2006). Of those
getting tattoos, the majority are younger, as this group is far more accepting of tattoos:
“The rate of tattooing in the 19908 has been documented to be much higher in young
people than among adults” (Schulz et a1 2006:123). Therefore, these data support the
“assumption of cohort theory that social transformations have greater impact on the
young than on the old” (F irebaugh & Harley 1991 :499).

The data collected during my time at the shop also support Schulz et al’s (2006)
claim that members of younger cohorts are tattooed at higher rates than those of older
cohorts. Furthermore, my experiences in other shops and interactions with various artists
suggest that this trend is more widespread than just in the Midwest. During the same
month for which I provided numerical data above, sixty-seven clients under the age of
thirty entered the shop for a tattoo or consultation. In comparison, only twenty people
over thirty years old came to the shop for tattoos or consultations, eight of whom were
between the ages of forty and fifty-four and two more who were fifty-five or older. While
this is only one month’s worth of observations, there seems to be a decline in the number

of tattooees within the older cohort groups (ibid.).

19

In addition to these patterns, members of the older cohorts tend to come from
groups that have long been stereotypically linked to tattoos, such as soldiers, convicts,
and members of the working class. The majority of those over thirty who came into the
shop would be considered working to lower middle class, which I determined based upon
each client’s profession and residence. Both of the senior citizens who came into the shop
during the month I was observing were working class. The majority of clients in the
middle-aged cohorts would also fall into this class, though there were some with at least
middle class standing, such as a local TV news anchorman who got a small tattoo on his
upper arm. Finally, the majority of young tattooees either came from the middle class or
had middle class aspirations. This does not mean that young soldiers, convicts and
working class individuals are no longer getting tattooed. Rather, they no longer have the
same virtual monopoly on tattooing, as they did when current members of older cohorts
were younger. This change in the class make-up of young tattooees suggests that cohort
replacement is occurring.

Another fact that points to cohort replacement is the adherence to the old way of
thinking about the behavior among members of older cohorts. For example, to fit with the
cohort replacement perspective, older people should still associate tattoos with deviance.
The fact that a member of the older cohort may participate in the non-normative behavior
does not necessarily mean that they have changed their perception of the behavior or that
they think the behavior should become normative. Betty entered the shop with her
daughter, Maggie, and grandson, Joe. Although Betty had a tattoo, she still thought of it

as deviant:

20

D: So what made you decide to get a tattoo?

B: Well, you know, it was our little walk on the wild side... I was sixty-seven
when I had it done. My husband don’t like it though.

D: Oh he doesn’t? (smirking)

B: No, he thought it was gunna be smaller.

D: Oh, he knew about it ahead of time?

B: Yeah, but he thought it was only gunna be like this (shows me her right hand
and makes a hole about the size of a half dollar.)

D: So he doesn’t like it then?

B: (shrugs shoulders and pauses) No.

Betty thought of getting a tattoo as an act of deviance, and later told me that she would
never have gotten the tattoo on her own or if she had to pay for it herself. She was
tattooed with four other women, all of whom considered their tattoos to be their “walk on
the wild side.” Her husband’s reaction was consistent with the notion that older
individuals will see the act (and lasting symbol) as outside normal behavior.

Although her mom and dad both considered tattoos deviant, Maggie, who was in
her upper thirties, liked larger tattoos. As Betty and I were speaking, Maggie interrupted
us:

M: Hey, how much would this cost. Just like that. The whole thing. (She was

pointing at a flash piece of a chalice tilted with wine splashing out from the top

and a cross floating above it. There was a banner around it which read last call for
alcohol.)

D: Oh, you’d have to ask Mikey about that (point to Mikey)

B: (scoots to the edge of the couch and leans forward in order to see what her

daughter is talking about.) Oh you wouldn’t get that!?

M: Sure I would.

B: That big!?!?

MzYeah, on my back (points to the small of her back)

B: No, that’s too much. That’s crazy.

This interaction between Betty and Maggie provides a good example of cohort
replacement, as it shows the different degrees to which members of various age groups

have come to accept tattoos. Maggie’s desires and actions show that she was “more likely

than [her] elders to criticize the existing order” (Ryder 1965:850), which states that

21

tattoos are not normal. Not only did Maggie bring her son (who is a minor) to be tattooed,
she was also interested in getting a tattoo that is approximately six inches by six inches.
Even though it would be in a hidden location, her mother still thought the tattoo’s size
made it “too much.” In Betty’s eyes, it was one thing to get a small tattoo in a moment of
weakness, but it was quite another to plan a large tattoo.

Marybeth is another woman over thirty with tattoos. Much like the subject of the
popular magazine’s article discussed above, Marybeth is a police officer. As was the case
for each of her previous two tattoos, Marybeth brought moral support — her friend Justine,
who was also a client of the shop:

D: Is this your first tattoo?

M: No, my third.

D: Oh, ok. Where are the other ones?

M: (pointing to the places on her body) One is on my lower back. And one is on

my ankle. This one is going on my side.

D: How come you brought somebody with you?

M: Moral support.

D: (leaning in attentively) And why did you need moral support?

M: Well, you know it’s scary. . .. And I guess I just wanted somebody there with

me for something so permanent.

J: (suddenly putting down her magazine and interjecting from the couch) I just

need somebody to talk to me and hold my hand.

D: So that’s it? It’s just that it’s scary?

M: (nods yes) And... well, it’s not something you’re supposed to do. So it’s good

to have somebody there.

Marybeth used tattoos to commemorate loved ones and express her identity, as shown by
the fact that she was getting her children’s names on her side. Yet even though she

believed that tattoos can legitimately be used as a form of identity formation, she still felt
that getting tattooed was a violation of social norms. As is expected following the cohort

replacement theory, Marybeth’s middle-agedness correlates to a more moderate version

of social change. Whereas she was progressive in her use of tattoos as a form of identity

22

formation, she maintained the old notion that tattoos are inherently deviant. Her views on
tattoos were solidified by her experience as a police officer:

D: Do you tell people about your tattoos? At work?

M: No. I mean if they ask I’ll tell them. My family all knows.

D: What kind of work do you do?

M: (Pauses for approximately five seconds, looks at her fiiend and smiles

nervously) Ummm. .. I’m a cop.

D: I just read an article a few weeks back. A cop in California got a full sleeve

done and then they decided tattoos weren’t allowed. Palo Alto I think it was.

M: Yeah, we’re not allowed to show them. We can’t offend people. If it offends

somebody then that’s not good.

Marybeth never criticized the fact that tattoos are still non-normative. On the contrary,
she said that tattoos are deviant and accommodated others who feel that way by getting
tattooed in unobjectionable locations. Not only has she complied with police regulations
regarding visible tattoos, she also refrained from openly disclosing the fact that she has
multiple tattoos.

The majority of new tattooees from the younger cohorts in both my shop and the
general population are now middle class (Demello 1995; Kosut 2006). Charlie is in her
mid twenties and attends graduate school. During our conversation, she made it clear that
she did not consider tattoos deviant. Charlie is approximately ten years younger than
Marybeth and her refirsal to label tattoos as deviant showed that she is even one step
further along the continuum of progressive social change. Nonetheless, her professional
aspirations led her to choose a more discrete location: “I don’t mind, but I may end up at
a conservative place and I don’t want to out myself off already just because of a tattoo. So

I’d like it either on my back or side.” Charlie wished that tattoos could be more widely

accepted, but was under the impression that such acceptance remains a long way off.

23

Current and previous rates of Americans with tattoos highlight the applicability of
cohort replacement, which is strengthened by the increasing prevalence of middle class
tattooees and a steady decrease of associating tattoos with deviance within each
progressively younger cohort—regardless of one’s own tattooed status (Armstrong et al
2002). The older cohorts, as exemplified by Betty, were overwhelmingly working class.
Middle-aged cohorts, as exemplified by Marybeth, tended to be working class, though
there was a definitive middle class presence emerging. Marybeth considered tattoos to be
deviant, but her friend, Justine, did not. Finally, younger cohorts, as exemplified by
Charlie, were majority middle class and hoped that tattoos could become more accepted.
In contrast to Marybeth, who did not voice displeasure with the fact that tattoos are
perceived negatively, Charlie and other members of younger cohorts were sure to quickly
point out that they disagreed with the notion that tattoos are deviant. Young clients were
well aware that tattoo’s status has not changed for older cohorts. Nonetheless, they have
become participants in the social transformation that now sees tattoos as worthy of
mainstream, respected individuals. In order to both satisfy their desire for tattoos and
accommodate older, more powerful cohorts, young clients took great care to make sure
their tattoos would not be discovered by those who do not approve. The methods

employed by the clients can best be explained through a dramaturgical analysis.

Dramaturgy
New tattooees were aware that they would eventually need to transition out of their
youthful setting into one dominated by older individuals and that their tattoos would

likely be received with some hostility. Irwin (2001) argued that new tattooees attempt to

24

make their tattoos seem legitimate to nontattooed people by emphasizing the middle class
motivations for their tattoos. In other words, tattooees often feel pressured to give
accounts of their tattoos to others in order to justify what is an otherwise “socially
undesirable” act (Orbuch 1997: 457). While this specific shop’s clientele were most
commonly tattooed for reasons discussed by Irwin, such as the young college graduate
who was tattooed with the school’s mascot in celebration of graduation, I find it more
meaningful to focus on the fact that the majority of new tattooees were tattooed in places
that are rarely visible to others. After all, tattooees knew that if they interviewed for a
professional job, and the interviewer was disapproving of tattoos in general, then it would
matter very little whether they got the tattoo in honor of graduation, in remembrance of a
lost loved one, or as an initiation into a street gang. Hence, clients entered the shop
prepared to undergo the process of impression management.

An important time to be able to control others’ perceptions, and one often
mentioned by clients, is during a job interview. Clients expressed a fear that the
interviewer, who will likely fall into one of the older cohorts, will maintain the traditional
way of thinking about tattoos and discriminate against them if they have visible tattoos.
Clients came into the shop hoping to be able to manage future impressions by getting
their tattoos in discrete locations. Brittney was the sister of a tattoo artist, but said she
hopes to become a French teacher after graduation. Although she and the rest of her
family had wholly accepted her sister’s many visible tattoos, Brittney only had tattoos on
her back and ribs, because she didn’t want to “jeopardize a chance at getting a teaching
job in the tight economy.” Even after I told her that I was able to get a job as a teacher

after I was already a tattooed person, she remained skeptical, because she knew that

25

tattoos are not ideal for teachers. Goffman (1959) explained how this awareness of
professional standards affects an individual’s actions:

If an individual is to give expression to ideal standards during his performance,

then he will have to forgo or conceal action which is inconsistent with these

standards. When an inappropriate conduct is itself satisfying in some way, as is
often the case, then one commonly finds it indulged in secretly; in this way the

performer is able to forgo his cake and eat it too. (41)

Brittney found tattoos satisfying in the sense that “it looks good.” Yet, she knew that

' teachers are expected to look and behave a certain way. Accordingly, she secretly
indulged in tattoos by having her tattoos placed on parts of the body that could never be
seen while working.

Valerie also picked a location that would not cause her to violate professional
standards. While she initially wanted a tattoo in a visible location, she later decided
against it after considering how it might affect her work:

V: I wanted it on my neck at first but I decided to get it lower down on the top of

my back. I can’t have it to where it’ll be showing.

D: Why couldn’t you have a tattoo showing?

V: Well, I’m training to work in a hospital and I wear my hair up a lot. The

hospital doesn’t let you have tattoos that people can see, because people don’t like

them. People are offended by them. I mean, I’m not. But others are offended by
them so I can’t have it on my neck.
Valerie needed to be able to conceal her tattoo, because she knew that tattoos are
“incompatible with the image of self” to the other (Goffinan 1967:141) that she would
have to maintain for hospital administrators. Accordingly, the entirety of Valerie’s tattoo
was located beneath the neckline.
By getting tattooed in hidden locations, tattooees can be confident that their tattoo

will not prevent them from being seen as cultured or civilized during non-intimate

interactions (Goffinan 1967). Easily hidden areas of the body are particularly appealing

26

to people with tattoos, because they allow tattooees to pass as normal and prevent
damage to their social identity (Goffrnan 1964). Lindsay, a client and university student
with one tattoo, realized that having a tattoo is “still wrong” in the eyes of society. She
took great care in selecting the location of her tattoo— a French translation of ‘No
Regrets’ under her left breast that served as a reminder of the type of person she desires
to be. While she felt comfortable showing her tattoo to close friends, she strategically
placed the tattoo where nobody could see it without her permission so that her elder
family members, as well as future employers and coworkers, would never have the
opportunity to judge her negatively based upon her tattoo. Lindsay’s story demonstrates
Goffman’s (1967) avoidance process: “The surest way for a person to prevent threats to
his face is to avoid contacts in which these threats are likely to occur” (15). People with
tattoos who have white collar aspirations know that they will have to interact with
nontattooed people who View tattoos negatively. Whereas they cannot altogether avoid
these interactions, they can avoid the threat of being perceived as unworthy of respected
positions by getting tattooed in places that will not be visible during such interactions.
Discrete tattoo locations can also prevent tattooees fiom being viewed negatively by
disapproving family members. In order to enable this avoidance process and minimize
future threats to their face, those who were merely traversing the tattoo culture were
willing to undergo more intense pain.

The majority of new tattooees received tattoos in places that could never be seen
while wearing shorts and a t-shirt, let alone while dressed appropriately for a professional
work environment. Many females were tattooed on their hip bone, beneath the waistline,

or on the top of their foot. It has also become increasingly popular for both male and

27

female tattooees to be tattooed on their rib cage. Ironically, the locations where one can
most easily hide a tattoo, such as the foot and rib cage, are also among the most painful.
For this reason, most tattoo artists preferred not to do a first tattoo on these sensitive areas
and shop personnel regularly suggested alternative bodily locations.

As I have already discussed, many clients claimed to be afiaid of what they
perceive to be the extremely painful tattoo process. If they were afraid of the pain, it
would be logical to conclude that they would be willing to take the advice of the shop’s
employees and consider getting their first tattoo in a less painful place. One wonders then
why the majority of first time clients refused to change their mind about the location of
their tattoo. Based upon the oft repeated concerns about future employability and
personal rejection, I argue that the tattooees were more concerned with the social stigma
of having a more readily visible tattoo than the temporary physical pain experienced
while getting the tattoo. The clients were aware of the status of tattoos and more willing
to experience physical pain. For example, Brittney knowingly entered a very painful rib
tattooing process in order to prevent future job discrimination. Her tattoo had to be
broken into several sessions, due to the intense pain. In the words of Goffman (1967:14),
such a client exhibits “a defensive orientation toward saving his own face”. Clients were
aware that they will need to be able to hide their tattoos in the future in order to maintain
the image they wish to present to others-- especially elder people in positions of
authority. The shop’s artists were also aware of this, which led to the shop policy of
refusing to tattoo minors in visible locations as well as refraining from tattooing hands

until a client has significant body coverage.

28

Although there is currently a need for young individuals to undergo impression
management, this may no longer be the case in the future if cohort replacement is, indeed,
taking place. As each younger cohort becomes more accepting of tattoos and then
transitions into positions of power, there should be less and less need for tattooees to save
face by hiding their tattoos from those in power. On the other hand, if the same
dramaturgical practices currently used by tattooees are still required in a few decades,
when today’s youth occupy positions of power, then cohort replacement theory could be
deemed an inappropriate explanation of today’s tattoo phenomenon. Herein lies the major
weakness of cohort replacement theory: there is no way to know whether it is appropriate
until several more cohorts emerge and that requires significant amounts of time. Future
researchers will need to reexamine this issue and determine if I have been correct in

suggesting cohort replacement theory.

29

CONCLUSION

The expanding popularity of tattoos seems to be based on the fact that these can serve
various purposes for different individuals. Some use them as a fashion tool whereas
others use them as a method of identity formation, such as commemorating a lost loved
one or representing one’s neighborhood. At the same time, society condemns tattooees
for their permanent markings based on the idea that only deviants would do such a thing.
Successful musicians, actors and athletes are regularly seen with visible tattoos and
inspire many young tatttooees to join the ranks of the tattooed. Yet while tattooees from
younger cohorts increasingly find tattoos normative, tattoos are in limbo-- neither fully
damned nor firlly lauded. Demello (1995) has argued that those promoting tattoos have
won the cultural battle and gained tattoo’s acceptance in the mainstream culture, but
tattoo clients remain concerned about cultural rejection.

In this article I have argued that this state of confusion stems from the process of
cohort replacement. By looking at how many people are getting tattooed from each
cohort as well as the types of people who are becoming tattooed, I have shown that
cohort replacement theory is helpful for understanding tattoo’s changing role in
American society. Following this theory, each cohort embraces the idea that tattoos are
acceptable forms of expression and fashion to a greater degree than the previous cohort.
Each younger cohort is also less likely to accept the norm against tattoos. Although the
process of cohort replacement appears to be underway, the likelihood of becoming a
tattooed person instead of a person with tattoos remains low for middle class individuals.
Future researchers should continue to conduct analyses of mainstream tattooees in order

to determine if cohort replacement theory is the best explanation of the current trend.

30

The seemingly contradictory situation in which tattoos are both mainstream and
unacceptable contributes to clients’ impression management. In an attempt to fill the
sociological gap of qualitative analysis in tattoo research, I have shown that clients go to
great lengths, including severe pain, to maintain a presentation of the self that is
acceptable to society’s powerful members. In addition to getting tattooed in discreet
locations, many people with tattoos openly chastise tattooed people. James, a very well
known and respected artist in the tattoo industry, told me how this relates to some of his
clients:

There is an old saying in the tattoo community: “the only difference between

tattooed people and non tattooed people, is that, tattooed people don’t care if

you’re not tattooed.” Sadly, you even see this with minor tattooed folks. The
middle age business woman decides to get the small rose ankle tattoo, and quickly
makes fun the people who have sleeves or back pieces. “How could anyone get
that”, she’ll say.

What seems to be a contradiction at the societal level sometimes reveals itself to
be hypocrisy at the individual level. The fact that millions of Americans continue to get
tattooed has led some scholars to suggest tattoos are now mainstream. Yet, as I have
argued, tattoos are not wholly accepted based on the accounts of those I talked to who
were in the process of getting tattoos. As more and more people choose to express
themselves through ink, the drarnaturgical processes meant to maintain one’s “dark
secret” (Goffrnan 19592141) will become increasingly harmful to tattooees and, in turn,
the greater society. Should the cohort replacement concerning tattoos stall out, millions of
Americans will be fated to live a life of “a special kind of alienation from self’
(ibid.:236).

Were tattoos just another youthful fad that parents and elders disapproved of,

discrimination against tattooees would not be as pressing an issue. However, tattoos are

31

more than a typical fad: “Even if the meanings of tattoos shift, and their present cultural
currency declines or exhausts, most tattooed bodies will bear this ironic fad for the course
of the life cycle” (Kosut 2006:1043). According to Kosut, over half of all adolescents
have seriously considered getting a tattoo. There is a bleak future for today’s youth
should they get tattooed only to enter a workforce where two in five adults think simply
having a tattoo justifies being denied employment and a majority of those who hire
applicants are anti-tattoo (Jones 2005; Mann 2005). The combination of more highly
skilled and highly educated Americans getting tattoos (Demello 1995; Greif et al 1999;
Armstrong 2002) with increasing discrimination against tattooees (Baldas 2005; Smith
2005; Vogel 2007) is setting the table for a nation that forever disqualifies highly
productive members solely based on pigmentation. Surely, this cannot lead to the
betterment of our society; sociologists must pay more attention to the tattoo phenomenon

in order to help avert such a problem in the future.

32

REFERENCES

Anderson, R. 1992. “Tattooing Should Be Regulated.” New England Journal of
Medicine 326(3): 207.

Armstrong, M., D. Owen, A. Roberts and J. Koch. 2002. “College Students and
Tattoos: Influence of Image, Identity, Family, and Friends.” Journal of
Psychosocial Nursing & Mental Health Services 40(10): 20-9.

Atkinson, M. 2004. “Tattooing and Civilizing Processes: Body Modification as Self-
control.” The Canadian Review of Sociology and Anthropology 41 (2): 125-46.

Baldas, T. 2005. “Workplace Appearance is More Than Skin deep.” The National Law
Journal 31: 5.

Bell, S. 1999. “Tattooed: A Participant Observer's Exploration of Meaning.” Journal of
American Culture 22(2): 53-8.

Berg, B. 2007. Qualitative Research Methods for the Social Sciences. New York:
Pearson Education, Inc.

Brooks, T., E. Woods, J. Knight and L. Shrier. 2003. “Body Modification and Substance
Use in Adolescents: Is There a Link?” Journal of Adolescent Health 32(1): 44-9.

Carroll, L. and R. Anderson. 2002. “Body Piercing, Tattooing, Self-esteern, and Body
Investment in Adolescent Girls.” Adolescence 37(147): 627-37.

Demello, M. 1995. “‘Not Just For Bikers Anymore’: Popular Representations of
American Tattooing.” Journal of Popular Culture 29(3): 37-52.

Deschesnes, M., S. Demers and P. Fines. 2006. “Prevalence and Characteristics of Body
Piercing and Tattooing Among High School Students.” Canadian Journal of
Public Health 97(4): 325-9.

Deschesnes, M., P. Fines and S. Demers. 2006. “Are Tattooing and Body Piercing
Indicators of Risk-taking Behaviours Among High School Students?” Journal of
Adolescence 29(3): 379-93.

Emerson, R., R. Fretz and L. Shaw. 1995. Writing Ethnographic F ieldnotes. Chicago, IL:
The University of Chicago Press.

Ferguson-Rayport, S., R. Griffith and E. Straus. 1955. “The Psychiatric
Significance of Tattoos.” Psychiatric Quarterly 29(1): 112-31.

Firebaugh, G. 1989. “Methods for Estimating Cohort Replacement Effects.” Sociological
Methodology 19(1 ): 243-62.

33

Firebaugh, G. and B. Harley. 1991. “Trends in US. Church Attendance: Secularization
and Revival, or Merely Lifecycle Effects?” Journal for the Scientific Study of
Religion 30(4): 487-500.

Gold, R. 1958. “Roles in Sociological Field Observations.” Social Forces 36(3): 217-
23.

Goffrnan, E. 1959. The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. Garden City, NY:
Doubleday Anchor Books.

------ . 1964. Stigma: Notes on the Management of Spoiled Identity. Englewood Cliffs,
NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc.

------ 1967. Interaction Ritual. Chicago, IL: Aldine Publishing Company.

Greif, J ., W. Hewitt and M. Armstrong. 1999. “Tattooing and Body Piercing:
Body Art Practices Among College Students.” Clinical Nursing Research 8(4):
368-85.

Irwin, K. 2001. “Legitimating the First Tattoo: Moral Passage through Informal
Action.” Symbolic Interaction 24(1): 49-73.

Jones, A. 2005. “Going on the Job Interview; Tattoo Taboo?” Philadelphia
Tribune, March 8. Retrieved March 11, 2008. Available: ProQuest.

J orgensen, D. 19.89. Participant Observation: A methodology for Human Studies.
London: Sage.

Kosut, M. 2006. “An Ironic Fad: The Commodification and Consumption of Tattoos.”
Journal of Popular Culture 39(6): 1035-48.

Langrnan, L. 2003. “Culture, Identity and Hegemony: The Body in a Global Age.”
Current Sociology 51(3/4): 223-48.

Mann, S. 2005. “New Poll: Public Divided on Regulating Appearance — From Weight to
Tattoos -- in the Workplace.” Business Wire, March 25. Retrieved March 11,
2008. Available: ProQuest.

Orbuch, T. 1997. “People‘s Accounts Count: The Sociology of Accounts.” Annual
Review of Sociology 23: 455-78.

Post, R. 1968. “The Relationship of Tattoos to Personality Disorders.” Journal of
Criminal law 59(4): 516-24.

34

Rosenblatt, D. 1997. “The Antisocial Skin: Structure, Resistance, and ‘Modern
Primitive’ Adomment in the United States.” Cultural Anthropology 12(3): 287-
334.

Ryder, N. 1965. “The Cohort as a Concept in the Study of Social Change.” American
Sociological Review 30(6): 843-61.

Sanders, C. 1989. Customizing the Body: The Art and Culture of Tattooing.
Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.

Sayre, C. 2007. “Tattoo Bans.” TIME. 170(19): 55-6.

Schulz, J., C. Karshin and D. Woodie]. 2006. “Body Art: The Decision Making Process
Among College Students.” American Journal of Health Studies 21(1/2): 123-7.

Smith, K. 2005. “Tattoos No Longer Job Taboo.” Knight Ridder Tribune Business News,
June 6. Retrieved March 11, 2008. Available: ProQuest.

Steward, S. 1990. Bad Boys and Tough Tattoos: A Social History of the Tattoo with
Gangs, Sailors and Street-Corner Punks 1950-1965. Binghamton, NY: The
Haworth Press, Inc.

Stim, A., A. Hinz and E. Brahler. 2006. “Prevalence of Tattooing and Body
Piercing in Germany and Perception of Health, Mental Disorders, and Sensation
Seeking Among Tattooed and Body-Pierced Individuals.” Journal of
Psychosomatic Research. 60(5): 531-4.

Vogel, C. 2007. “Marked for Life: Tattoos are Often a Source of Personal Expression
and Pride, but When it Comes to Careers and Other Opportunities, Body Art Can
Cause Problems.” The Buflalo_News, Nov 7. Retrieved March 11, 2008.
Available: Proquest.

Wainwright, D. 1997. “Can Sociological Research Be Qualitative, Critical and Valid?”
The Qualitative Report 3(2). Retrieved September 23, 2008
(http://www.nova.edu /ssss/QR/QR3-2/wain.htrnl#jorgensen).

Whelan, D. 2001. “Ink Me, Stud.” American Demographic 23(12): 9-11.
Whyte, W. 1955 . Street Corner Society. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
Wohlrab, S., J. Stahl, T. Rammsayer and P. Kappeler. 2007. “Differences

in Personality Characteristics Between Body-modified and Non-modified

Individuals: Associations with Individual Personality Traits and Their Possible
Evolutionary Implications.” European Journal of Personality 21(7): 931-51.

35

 

llilllilllilllj'l‘tlllllllll