Last time, I was talking about how tattoos are so varied now. As with the Kalinga, whom I mentioned in the last post, tattoos began as social practice. They served social functions of, for example, marking status. Now, they are more of an artform. Because of the internet, and how it’s become so much easier to cross geographical boundaries, we have such a huge range of images, symbols and texts from all around the world that we consume daily, and can choose to etch into our bodies.
This creates interesting complexities. On one hand, it’s amazing. Tattoos today are so beautiful and varied, and each artist has their own style, and each individual has the opportunity to shape and decorate their body in a way they are comfortable with.
On the other hand, cultural appropriation is still a thing.
According to Wikipedia (100% trusted source), cultural appropriation refers to when a dominant culture adopts or misuses elements of a minority culture, such as clothing, ornaments or imagery.
In my personal opinion, I don’t really have a problem with people choosing to get an Om symbol as a tattoo. This thing right here →
Because Hinduism is a philosophy after all, and maybe someone identifies with the principles of it. It irks me, however, when people use aspects my culture, like the language for example, without understanding any of the meanings behind them, as a way of exoticizing themselves and standing out from the crowd.
Like… why on earth does David Beckham need to get his wife’s name tattooed in Sanskrit? Did he visit India? Is he part Indian? None of the news/tabloid sites mentioned why. Anyway, It makes for a good laugh though, seeing as it’s spelled wrong and translates to Vhictoria, and now he gets to keep that forever. Haha remember when your forefathers occupied my country David, and now you tryna pretend it’s ok to just get random Sanskrit letters on you like you own them. Nice one.
But anyway. I think even the fact that he had the opportunity to appropriate my language is amazing. This means that he not only had exposure to the Sanskrit language, through maybe media or books, or whatever, but it also means that there are enough Indian immigrants in the UK that some now have tattoo parlours and can do Sanskrit tattoos (or it was just an image that someone traced, but let me be idealistic for a bit here).
What does this mean for processes of identity construction? To me, this trend of tattoos becoming increasingly varied and multi-faceted shows a broader change in today’s postmodern world, in terms of how people think about their identities. The question I want to explore is — is identity becoming more and more of an agency-centered process? Or, are our identities still as affected by the broader social structures we are embedded within? Or is it still an equal combination of both? I will explain and talk more about these terms next time!
