Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Sick/Beautiful/Freak: Nonmainstream Body Modification and the Social Construction of Deviance

Sick/Beautiful/Freak: Nonmainstream Body Modification and the Social Construction of Deviance Nonmainstream body modification practitioners actively demonstrate a confounding agency that often results in the stigmatization of their physical characteristics, their moral constitution, and their behavior. By inscribing meaning and identity in visible ways rather than allowing society to project expectations onto them based on their gender, age, race, sexual orientation, and so on, nonmainstream body modifiers present a unique challenge to American conceptions of what is healthy, what is beautiful, and what is human. Using Patricia Hill Collins’ idea of controlling images, Erving Goffman’s conceptions of stigma, and Arthur W. Frank’s styles of body usage typology, this article examines constructions of deviance within the embodied framework of unconventional body modification practices. Keywords body modification, deviance, stigma, identity, health, illness, beauty ideals rather than allowing society to project expectations onto Introduction them based on their gender, age, race, sexual orientation, and Contemporary Western culture views the practice of non- so on, nonmainstream body modifiers present a unique mainstream (extreme) body modification as, alternately, an challenge to American conceptions of what is healthy, what attention-seeking trend, the sign of a masochistic or sadistic is beautiful, and what is human. In addition, because of the personality, a symbol of affiliation with a deviant group, or highly stigmatizing and discrediting effects of possessing a symptom of psychological instability. Therefore, dominant nonmainstream body modifications (“mods”), body modifi- society often questions the motivations and mental capacity cation practitioners (“Mods”) themselves are often labeled by of individuals who engage in nonmainstream body modifi- dominant culture as monsters, curios, and sick freaks in des- cation and, in the process, ascribes labels of social deviance, perate need of mental health intervention. Because of the personality disorder, and/or psychopathology to those who deep social implications of such labels, this article examines modify their bodies in unconventional ways. Although some the concept of freakery/monstrosity as a salient theme found individuals who engage in body modification activities do through analysis of adult respondents’ surveys, and examines exhibit outstanding psychological comorbidity, research dominant culture’s tendency to conflate bodily appearance shows that body modifiers are not at any higher risk of men- with psychopathology and Western beauty norms with defini- tal illness than the general population (Favazza, 1996; tions of masculinity and femininity. Larratt, 2003; Musafar, 1996). To interrogate these and other common assumptions, my Review of the Literature research focuses on the individual as the agented subject of social action rather than the passive object onto which society The literature describes myriad themes when it comes to the projects meaning. Because nonmainstream body modifiers motivations behind and social implications of body modifi- actively demonstrate a confounding agency that often results cation, from the personal to the political, the social to the in the stigmatization of their physical characteristics, their pathological (Bensler & Paauw, 2003; Favazza, 1996; moral constitution, and their behavior, my assertion is that it Featherstone, 2000; Larratt, 2003; Musafar, 2002; Pitts, is through the conscious process of reappropriating and rede- University of Colorado, Colorado Springs, USA fining controlling images (Collins, 2000) that nonmainstream body modifiers (perceived as insane, ugly, monstrous) recap- Corresponding Author: ture a measure of power from dominant society and, in the Morgen L. Thomas, University of Colorado, 1420 Austin Bluffs Pkwy., process, prove their humanity to others. Furthermore, I sug- Colorado Springs, CO 80918, USA Email: mthomas@uccs.edu gest that by inscribing meaning and identity in visible ways 2 SAGE Open 2003; Sweetman, 1999; Vale & Juno, 1989). However, five particularly salient when considering body practices that, main themes seem apparent in the literature. because of their overt unconventionality, lie far outside what The first theme is tribal ritual/identification with an indig- mainstream society deems acceptable for male and female enous culture (Camphausen, 1997; Gay & Whittington, 2002; bodies as far as gender, sexuality, and appearance norms. Mercury, 2000; Musafar, 2002; Rush, 2005; Vale & Juno, The fifth theme prevalent in the literature is pathology/ 1989). As technology advances, so does our human need for mental illness (Bensler & Paauw, 2003; Favazza, 1996). This connection and identification. The “modern primitive” move- theme is common to psychological discussions of body modi- ment remains in full force as individuals seek group affilia- fication. Body modification—also known as body alteration, tion with others who share their cross-cultural interests in body invention, body adornment, body technology, body aes- body rites and intentional ordeals, characterized as “physi- thetics, body projects, and body customization—has been a cally, emotionally, and spiritually challenging activities that means of personal, social, and political expression in are pursued for their potential psychological, social, and spir- American society since the early 1970s (Vale & Juno, 1989; itual benefits” (Dryer, 2007). Musafar, 2002). Although forms of body modification such The second theme is reclamation of the body (Orlan, 2005; as tattooing have been prevalent among the American work- Pitts, 2000, 2003; Sweetman, 1999). Many Western body ing class since the turn of the last century, and was used to modifiers view the physical body as a potential landscape for indicate group membership status or familial connections, by representation and inscription, a site of political and personal mid-20th century, this type of body mark had become more negotiation. These themes are not new, however, as noted by closely associated with counterculture groups such as motor- contemporary body theorists Bryan S. Turner (1984), Arthur cycle and street gangs as well as those who had spent time in W. Frank (1991), Chris Shilling (2003), Victoria Pitts (2003), prison (Edelman, 2000; Mercury, 2000; Myers, 1992; Pitts, Anthony Synnott (1993), John O’Neill (1985), Elizabeth 2003). This visual signifier of affiliation officially relegated Grosz (1994), and Mike Featherstone (1982). Across time members of these subcultures to the socially constructed cat- and space, the corporeal body has been a site of discursive egory of deviant in the public consciousness, a problem cur- debate for, as these theorists suggest, embodiment is key to rently faced by many contemporary body modifiers. Today, such systemic phenomena as sexism, racism, ageism, and body modifiers cite many reasons other than social affiliation other sociocultural concerns. Without a physical body to when discussing their particular forms of body alteration, and oppress, abuse, and subordinate, such acts as lynching and claim that their actions are in no way an indication of an unsta- rape, for example, would be impossible. Thus, the very fact of ble mind, as some literature suggests (Bensler & Paauw, 2003; our physical embodiment, and the explicit auto-manipulation Favazza, 1996) but rather a process of expression, invention, of the corporeal landscape by self and other, calls into ques- and reception (Larratt, 2003; Musafar, 2002; Myers, 1992; tion the status quo of body politics, beauty ideals, race rela- Orlan, 2005; Pitts, 2003; Sweetman, 1999). tions, and gender norms as well as many other sociological In rebuttal to mainstream society’s ascriptions of mon- discussions (Bogdan, 1988; Grosz, 1994; Pitts, 2000, 2003; strosity, deviance, and mental illness, Mods point out that in Terry & Urla, 1995; Thomson, 1996). fact all people modify their bodies, whether by means of The third theme is sexual enhancement/body adornment. commercial cosmetic application, hair dye, aerobic exercise With the sexual revolution of the 1960s and 1970s, the body and weight-lifting, dieting, or plastic surgery (Featherstone, became a focal point for inscribing sexual preferences and 1982; Gimlin, 2002; Pitts, 2006; Sweetman, 1999; Thesander, freedoms, a site of pleasure and pain, as well as a particular 1997). They assert that body modification—in particular, the kind of sexual ownership—via adornment—and decoration signification of the corporeal body as a symbolic landscape to (Larratt, 2003; Musafar, 2002; Vale & Juno 1989). be used and manipulated as a means to reinforce or dismantle The fourth theme is self-expression/identity construction common cultural assumptions, reinforce societal norms, cre- (Camphausen, 1997; Gay & Whittington, 2002; Larratt, ate identity and/or status, or influence the larger social body— 2003; Mercury, 2000; Musafar, 2002; Pitts, 2000, 2003; Vale has been practiced in one form or another for centuries and is & Juno, 1989). Some writers have noted that by modifying evident across gender, class, and racial lines, transcending their appearance in what some label monstrous ways, body socioeconomic and cultural boundaries (Favazza, 1996; modifiers are in fact reifying the stereotypes and associated Mills, 2005; Musafar, 2002; Rosenblatt, 1997). behavioral expectations they claim to be resisting through their body modification practices (Adams, 1996; Bogdan, Theoretical Considerations 1988; Edelman, 2000; Pitts, 2003). One example of this pro- posed reification is the modern day “freak” show, in which Because this article examines constructions of bodily devi- individuals with anomalous bodies put themselves on display ance, the term deviant warrants clarification. Erich Goode, in performance settings for the entertainment of “normals” following Lemert’s (1951) discussion of primary and sec- (Bogdan, 1988; Cook, 1996; Goffman, 1963). Another ondary deviation, defines extreme deviance in terms of example is the association of tattoos with a criminal stereo- “behavior, beliefs, or physical traits that are so far outside type, that is, prison tattoos. The concept of “monstrosity” is the norm that they elicit extremely negative reactions” Thomas 3 (Goode, 2008, p. ix). Whereas primary deviation refers to CONTROL simple nonnormative behavior that may or may not elicit punishment, condemnation, or scorn from the members of PredictableConngent any given group, secondary deviation refers to the more Disciplined Dominang Lacking Dissociated serious and pervasive acts of deviance that can result in (Regimentaon) (Force) DESIRE SELF-RELATEDNESS deviance labeling on the part of mainstream society, or what Mirroring Communicave Goode calls “the audience.” Deviance labeling is a process (Consumpon) (Recognion) Producing Associated whereby members of the in-group begin to view the rule Monadic Dyadic violator as a deviant rather than viewing the act itself as deviant. The result is the internalization of the deviant label OTHER-RELATEDNESS on the part of the norm violator, whereby the violator begins Figure 1. Arthur W. Frank’s styles of body usage to view himself or herself as a deviant rather than simply someone who committed a deviant act. The label, in essence, becomes an important component of his or her regarding specific action problems. The four styles of body actual identity. Both primary and secondary deviance defi- usage are the disciplined body, the dominating body, the mir- nitions are crucial to understanding how Mods view them- roring body, and the communicative body (Figure 1). selves, how they view society-at-large, and how they think mainstream society views them. It is worth noting here that Method deviance is not inherent to the individual committing the norm violation. Rather it is a label imposed on the norm- The primary research instrument was a qualitative survey breaker based on the reactions of those around him or her, questionnaire, the URL link to which was posted on the fore- and is a product of commonly understood and widely most website designed specifically for nonmainstream body accepted cultural norms and their perceived violation. modifiers (www.bmezine.com). The questionnaire included Hand-in-hand with acts of social deviation is the concept an informed consent page, 6 demographic questions, and 15 of stigma or disgrace. Erving Goffman (1963) proposes three open-ended questions concerning motivation, social resis- sources of stigma. The first, an abomination of the body, is tance, family, and views of mainstream society’s perceptions defined as a physical characteristic or trait that is either an concerning gendered bodies and nonmainstream body modi- aesthetic violation or a physical impairment. The second is a fications. Only adult participants (age 18 and above) who blemish of individual character, defined as a weak will or met the operational definition of nonmainstream body modi- unnatural passions. The third source of stigma is that which fication were considered (see Table 1). Respondents ranged is transmitted through lineage, such as race or religion. For in age from 18 to 47 with an almost even split between being analysis purposes, this article largely incorporates Goffman’s employed and being a student. The total number of self- first and second sources of stigma—an abomination of the reported males was 20, with a total of 55 respondents self- body (violations of normative appearance) and a blemish of reporting as female. One respondent reported being individual character (pursuit of unnatural passions), which female-to-male transgender, 2 respondents identified as often earn Mods a deviant identity in the eyes of mainstream androgynous, and 1 respondent declined to answer. Twenty- Western society. In addition, Goffman’s term normal(s) is three females reported being married or in a relationship; 25 used to indicate members of mainstream (conventional) females reported being single. Nine males reported being society as compared with individuals who occupy a stigma- married or in a relationship; 10 males reported being single. tized status, such as those who practice nonmainstream body Five females and 1 male reported being gay, bisexual, or modification. queer. One female respondent reported being in a long-term To illustrate the interpersonal strategies many Mods use to slave/master relationship. A qualitative content analysis was neutralize potentially negative reactions within specific social conducted using an inductive approach. Confidentiality and environments, Arthur W. Frank’s (1991) styles of body usage anonymity issues were handled in accordance with institu- typology will also be referred to. For Frank, the corporeal tional review board (IRB) protocol and per the informed body is an essential component in how individuals experience consent page indicating that actual names would not be used. their bodies not only as active agents but also as socially To completely avoid the potential identification of respon- constructed and constituted entities whose contingency is part dents, any reference to a specific respondent or direct quote and parcel of the social process. Frank offers four dimen- taken from a questionnaire is acknowledged only by the first sions, or “action problems,” that a body must confront in letter of the first name provided by the respondent, followed social interaction with other bodies: control (predictable or by his or her survey number. For example, if the respondent contingent), desire (lacking or producing), other-relatedness provided the name “Chris” and Chris was the 23rd respon- (monadic or dyadic), and self-relatedness (alienation from or dent, the attribution shown would be “Mod C23.” association with corporeality). Furthermore, Frank argues Although some scholars may consider the Internet a ques- that individuals, as social actors, employ a primary style of tionable and unreliable venue for gathering social scientific body usage to accomplish tasks and reach their goals data, the nature of this research, with regards to discreditable 4 SAGE Open Table 1. Nonmainstream Body Modifications Gauging/elongation: Earlobes, anal, nipple, penile, scrotal, labial Skin: Branding, cutting, scarring, keloiding Chiseling/scalpeling: Bone, cartilage Tattooing: Facial, full body, ocular, anomalously placed Piercing: Genital, facial, anomalously placed Genital: Bifurcation (splitting), saline/silicone injection/pumping, inversion, excision, penile subincision (cutting underside of the penis), superincision (cutting both the underside and top of the penis), incision, bisection, labial or penile frenectomy (removal of restricting ligament), meatotomy (splitting of underside of the glans penis) Implants: Genital, ocular, subdermal, microdermal, transdermal, beading, teeth Nullification/negation: Genital, extremity, phalange, carpal, ocular, nipple, teeth Oral: Teeth filing, tongue bifurcation (splitting), lingual frenectomy (removal of restricting ligament), piercing, tattooing Other: Any other body modification that would be considered nonmainstream by Western societal standards identities, mandated that the population researched for this nonmainstream body modification. This definition therefore study be assured a level of anonymity so as not to stigmatize excludes conventional earlobe, tongue, nose, navel, and eye- them further. Therefore, approaching potential respondents brow piercings, traditional male circumcision, and the prac- via online forums that already offered a level of control to tice of genital mutilation on female children in some African their members over issues of impression management and Middle Eastern societies (see Table 1). seemed the most efficacious method for gathering transpar- ent data, offering respondents the freedom to express them- Sick/Beautiful/Freak: Confronting selves without fear of negative sanctions and public exposure. Controlling Images An unanticipated result of posting an open link on a web forum was that it allowed Mods from outside the United Through detailed content analysis of the returned surveys, States to respond. In the end, this served to broaden the scope several themes emerged, highlighting the pervasiveness of of perspectives concerning nonmainstream body modifica- specific controlling images that nonmainstream body modi- tion in Western societies. fiers must confront in their daily interactions with normals. The first is the attribution of psychopathology, or a “sick” mind. The second is the normative perception of modified Operational Definitions bodies as being less beautiful because they fall outside con- There are numerous definitions of body modification, so it is ventional gender norms and beauty ideals, and the third is necessary to define this term. Body modification is generally the attribution of monstrosity, or “freak,” which implies a defined as any permanent or semipermanent, voluntary normative view of nonmainstream body modifiers as being alteration of the human body that is not medically mandated. less than human. The following section examines these con- Bodily alterations that are commonly accepted under the trolling images and the impact they have not only on the plastic surgery umbrella, diet and exercise regimes, and pro- social interactions Mods have with normals in daily life but cedures such as permanent and nonpermanent cosmetic also on identity construction processes and interpersonal application fall under this definition of body modification. communication styles. Nonmainstream body modification in my research is defined as any permanent or semipermanent, voluntary alteration of Sick the human body that is not medically mandated and that transgresses and challenges common assumptions and Skin—as private canvas and public target—has played a expectations of bodily presentation and/or aesthetic, and role in every aspect of social interaction and construction of therefore may be considered extreme and/or deviant by self since the dawn of humanity. As such, the highly visible members of mainstream Western society. Therefore, conven- sensorial human exterior is vulnerable to what Patricia Hill tional plastic surgery, while permanent/semipermanent and Collins (2000) terms controlling images—symbols of presumably voluntary, is not included in my definition of inscription that are projected by dominant society onto the nonmainstream body modification. Tattoos and piercings, in bodyminds of people, individually and collectively, to cre- general, are not considered. There is an exception to this ate and promote stereotypes. According to Collins, stereo- exclusion, however. Full-body tattoos/piercings, genital tat- types serve two primary functions: (a) They serve to toos/piercings, facial tattoos/piercings, and tattoos/piercings conceal or normalize oppression by making it seem like that may be considered within mainstream society’s stan- something the subjugated person wants or something that is dards as egregiously norm-breaking, unconventionally fundamental to the subjugated person’s inherent nature and placed, and/or excessive may fall under the definition of (b) they serve to influence people, consciously and subcon- Thomas 5 sciously, into behaving in certain ways (Collins, 2000). In One goal of the communicative body, particularly the Collins’s view, controlling images entail the conjoining of communicative body in illness, is to free itself from societal different features (i.e., race, class, gender, sexuality) and codes that constrain expression so that it can seek out new complicate the dynamic between acts of oppression and acts codes of its own invention (Frank, 1991). One way the com- of resistance. municative body does this is by sharing the personal story of One controlling image that Mods directly challenge is its corporeal journey. In doing so, the individual has the the notion that skin (particularly female skin), the body’s opportunity to neutralize the fear, confusion, shock, anger, protective external barrier, should never be breached, and despair that often accompany a diagnosis. In the case of marked, or otherwise “damaged,” unless these practices nonmainstream body modification, it is mainstream society serve to move an individual closer to a dominant ideal of (normals) that diagnose and ascribe illness to the bodyminds attractiveness. Mods, by virtue of their overtly marked of Mods. appearance and pursuit of “unnatural passions,” do not meet Many Mods employ interactive strategies in an attempt to the standards of health as defined by dominant culture. actively neutralize the fear, confusion, and shock their appear- Therefore, because Western society continues to create and ance sometimes elicits. One way Mods mediate others’ perpetuate arbitrary dualisms in every aspect of human reactions to them and reappropriate the controlling image of behavior, there is only one other category available to nor- illness—thus creating new narratives surrounding mental mals in which to locate Mods—that of the unwell, the sick, and physical health—is by responding in an unanticipated physically and psychologically. According to the comments manner, interrupting a potentially negative social exchange made by many survey respondents, Mods are regularly by calling out in the normal a wholly novel response that judged by mainstream Western society as psychologically forces the normal’s recognition of the Mod as human. Mod unsound (i.e., mentally ill) and therefore potentially danger- H29 illustrates this transactive approach: “I get asked ques- ous to themselves and others. Elaborating on the illness tions which I wouldn’t mind if people were polite about it. motif, Mod M20 notes that Mods are viewed as “freaks, But just because they’re not polite doesn’t mean I’m not sadists, dirty, worthless, and insane.” going to be,” and Mod S42 writes, “I’ve never been rude to The language used in psychological literature implies, someone asking about mods, and I think that can influence not so covertly, that individuals who intentionally cut their reactions.” Mod M01 writes, “Some [people] seem themselves, burn themselves, or otherwise inflict pain on weirded out at first, but most are understanding after they themselves, for whatever reason, suffer from some inherent meet me and find out I’m not an asshole.” Mod S49 uses mental defect or have experienced some type of emotional humor to neutralize the encounter: “I get a lot of people trauma in their lives that drives them to harm themselves. asking me if it hurt, how I got them done and stuff. I just The implication is that these individuals are in need of tell younger teenagers that I got a giant hole punch and they intensive treatment to “correct” the disorder (Favazza, 1996; actually believe me most of the time.” Mod H31 notes the Pitts, 2003). Medical institutions, in particular, seem to have efforts of some normals to establish a familiar kinship: “Most categorization and pathologization of difference as their often than not I get curiosity. ‘Wow, did that hurt?’ ‘How primary goals, whether that difference manifests in “devi- many tattoos do you have?’ ‘I have a tattoo! Wanna see?’ It’s ant” sexuality, transgression from the White male norm nice because 5 years ago that almost never happened.” (i.e., the pathologization and subsequent medicalization of Elaborating on the curiosity of normals, Mod S50 writes, gynecological processes) or seeking a nonnormative appear- ance by having silicone horns subdermally implanted in Generally, I don’t have any issues with people . . . one’s head. Mod R63 elaborates on normals’ tendency to children are honest though. I see children staring at me connect body modification with emotional trauma: as their parents try to drag them along. Children want “Someone once asked me if I was abused as a child and if to look at someone that looks different, but parents that was the reason I hated my body enough to do every- don’t want to be caught staring. I’ve caught a few thing I do to it,” and Mod H31 notes that “mainstream people trying to surreptitiously take my picture. Western people automatically assume that if you have an ‘extreme’ mod there’s something wrong with you.” And Mod M02 highlights how Mods, as a stigmatized When confronted with others’ assumptions of illness or group, feel they have to employ certain tactics to prove their emotional trauma, Mods are quick to defend their body prac- mental stability: tices, differentiating themselves from “self-mutilators” and those who exhibit some type of documented psychological To me the mods feel natural and normal so I’m not infirmity. Analyzing nonmainstream body modification going to announce them, but on the other hand, I do take within the context of the illness motif and the communica- my time explaining them because I don’t want [people] tive style of body usage (see Figure 1) sheds light on how to think there’s anything mentally wrong with me. Mods reappropriate the controlling image of mental illness, turning this image and its social implications into possibility Mod H23 demonstrates personal agency (with a hint of rather than limitation. social resistance) in her interactions: “The general public 6 SAGE Open believes I am over the edge, crazy, not in the right mind, and and incapable. By restructuring the illness motif, one of I enjoy every moment that I can prove their shallow outlooks many controlling images constructed around Western ideas false.” of ableness, and creating new narratives surrounding health In terms of the (ill) communicative body in nonmain- and ability, Mods actively and tacitly attempt to counteract stream body modification, this process of story sharing society’s projection of pathology onto their bodyminds. In serves to create social cohesion rather than the monadic iso- this process, Mods inscribe new meanings and create new lation that many Mods experience as a result of their devi- codes that assert not only their humanity but their mental ance label. Furthermore, a dyadic other-relatedness and an and physical health as well. associated self-relatedness are achieved when Mods actively pursue interactions that result in the healthy establishment Beautiful of their humanity and their sanity because “when illness is told, its lack becomes producing, and as desire becomes Like such body practices as pumping iron, dieting, using producing, contingency becomes possibility” (Frank, 1991, hair dye and applying cosmetics, as well as socially accept- p. 88). This narrative sharing opens new possibilities for able plastic surgery techniques, some nonmainstream body normals and Mods alike to realize their own bodies in rela- modifications reflect an individual’s desire to achieve a tion to others who share the corporeal story not only of perfected version of himself or herself. However, what is weakness and affliction but also of pleasure and imagina- considered the “perfect” or “beautiful” body is greatly tion. Among the unwell and infirm, as among performance dependent on cultural definitions of feminine and masculine artists who use their bodies as a means to communicate dis- bodies and how they may or may not digress from the char- sent and resistance, narratives are fundamentally embodied acteristics and expectations of gendered behavior and and therefore vital to the mutual recognition of bodies and appearance. lives as interwoven with the bodies and lives of others Mods who cite aesthetics as a primary motivating factor (Frank, 1991). behind their body modification practices enjoy adorning and Cultural psychiatrist Armando Favazza (1996) empha- decorating their bodies in unique ways because they find the sizes the need of psychological and psychiatric institutions to end result aesthetically and artistically pleasing (i.e., beauti- have a more inclusive, holistic view of “self-mutilative” ful), despite the social ramifications of their body practices. behaviors, asserting that reducing these acts to nothing more Demonstrating this confounding agency, Mod A64 explains, than a passive attempt at suicide, a cry for help, the sign of an afflicted mind, or an attention-seeking scheme is a gross I find body modifications of all types to be aestheti- oversimplification of a very complex aspect of human cally enhancing. I like the way you can accentuate a behavior. particular feature of your body with a modification, or draw attention away from a part of your body you find It is clear that the individual human body mirrors the less desirable. collective social body, and each continually creates and sustains the other. Misperceptions of reality, feel- Contemporary media outlets reproduce depictions of the ings of guilt, negative self-images, antisocial acts, and young, hypersexual, and/or infantilized female body and the all the other symptoms we associate with personal youthful, hypermasculinized male body, constantly messag- mental illness defy understanding without reference to ing through these images how men and women, girls and the psychological, social, cultural, and physical integ- boys, should want to look. Any physical presentation that rity of the communal “body.” (Favazza, 1996, p. xiii) transgresses these normalized (controlling) images, whether it’s the morbidly obese woman or the effeminate man, is met In other words, situating the individual behavior within with disdain, judgment or, in some cases, outright aggression a broader social context is crucial to understanding the on the part of normals. These controlling images are often motivation behind phenomena such as nonmainstream associated, overtly and covertly, with relevant messages body modification. Mods are not chronically, terminally, or regarding marriageability, fertility, strength, youth, vibrancy, psychologically ill simply because they choose to modify and healthy body integrity—all of which are symbolic indi- their bodies in nonnormative ways. However, mainstream cators of successful bodily presentation according to Western society, in its quest for continued binary categorization beauty and gender norms. opportunities, ascribes illness to heavily modified bodies in Accepted body modification procedures such as breast an attempt to understand what is healthy and what is not. implants, liposuction of fat cells, relocation and tightening of Healthy, within the context of corporeal bodies, is defined facial tissue, and silicone implants designed for the cheeks, as a pristine, smooth, firm, youthful, capable presentation. buttocks, and pectoral areas of men’s bodies are just a few Unhealthy, by dual opposition then, is defined at the oppo- examples of Frank’s mirroring style of body usage. Not only site end of the dichotomous framework that bodies are often do these practices make the body predictable in many ways forced into—in this case deficient, blemished, flabby, old, but they also help to recursively reproduce unconscious Thomas 7 desire, which manifests in isolated monadic consumerist burning, and tattooing of the skin. The perception of abhor- behavior. By ceaselessly producing in individuals a superfi- rence on the part of normals is what makes these acts deviant, cial desire aimed at the materiality of things that consumer not the act itself, especially when compared with more con- culture promotes as necessary (youthful appearance, on- ventional body enhancement practices that reify and repro- demand sexual function, etc.), certain capitalist institutions duce the American beauty ideal, rewarding and privileging and the values they promote become more firmly rooted in those who strive toward the positively sanctioned representa- the collective consciousness regarding what is available for tions of what a woman or a man “should” look like. As Mods immediate consumption—physically, emotionally, spiritu- show through the deliberate cutting, burning, marking, and ally, and mentally. Because of this, the mirroring body style scarring of their flesh, definitions of beauty do not always is of particular interest when considering the divergent con- follow social protocol. These forms of appearance norm- sumer practices of Mods and the predictability they seek breaking can and do result in scorn and ostracism. Mod J34 through a contradictory form of consumption that they find illustrates this point, “Society in general is quite hateful, and beautiful and make apparent to others through their highly I’ve yet to figure out why some color on one’s skin or a few visible modified appearance, the presentation of which pieces of metal alter who a person is in the eyes of another.” causes an expected outcome, thus offering the Mod a mea- Mod J19, also noting Western society’s emphasis on appear- sure of control in social encounters. ance and the consequences of having a nonnormative physi- As noted, Goffman’s (1963) first source of stigma (an cal presentation, writes, “[Mods] are often stared at and cast abomination of the body) is particularly relevant to non- aside because they look different from everyone else. I find it mainstream body modifiers and their lived experience, as sickening that [Mods] are not treated with respect or like a any perceived violation of the corporeal landscape forces a human being, they are treated like an animal.” The concept of reconfiguring of common assumptions about body integrity, humanness and the desire of the bodymind to not only com- appearance, and function not only for the modifying indi- prehend but also to prove its humanity is an interesting com- vidual but for conventional society as well. Many Mods ponent of the interactive social strategies used by individuals implicate the American beauty ideal of smooth, pristine, who practice nonmainstream body modification. firm skin as one source of their discreditable status and their By marking their bodies in highly visible and potentially rebellion, whether social or personal, against it. discrediting ways, as opposed to adopting routines that vali- Illustrating the perceived hypocrisy of normals who dif- date and reward aesthetic conformance, Mods seemingly ferentiate between mainstream and nonmainstream body move away from the American beauty ideal of pristine, modification, positively sanctioning one practice while unblemished, youthful skin and body presentation, and demonizing the other, Mod H31 writes, toward what dominant society deems an unacceptable appearance and body presentation. In showing a unique kind No one looks twice if you’ve got a nose job or boob of agency when it comes to their consumer habits and implants, or if you get botox once a week . . . choosing tastes—an agency that could be interpreted as blatant rejec- to be modified does not make someone sick, twisted, tion of bodily conformance—these Mods directly challenge insane, a satanist, or any other negative attribute. Frank’s construct of the mirroring body as a purely passive [Mods] should be given the same respect and opportu- and oblivious receptor of dominant consumerist ideals. nities as anyone else. Beautiful Girl, Handsome Boy Speaking to the automatic assumption of bad character, Mod L11 writes, “Having visible modifications does not As noted, the negative comments and reactions of others do make me a worse student, human being, etc. I can’t wait for little to stop a Mod from modifying. Mods will engage in a the day when I stop being judged based solely on my appear- variety of strategies, including covering, passing, informa- ance,” and Mod A62 shares, “I don’t have a motorcycle or tion control, and impression management (Goffman, 1963) breed snakes in my parents’ basement or do drugs. Body to avoid and/or neutralize normals’ gestural and verbal con- modification is not about bikers and rappers. It’s a very per- demnation of their body practices, practices that actively sonal choice.” Addressing the manufactured connection violate the American beauty ideal of what male and female between health and beauty, Mod E75 writes, bodies should (want to) look like. However, nowhere is the disapproval Mods experience more egregious than in the I do think we should try to be healthier, but not aspire family milieu. to a prototype of beauty, but one that makes US feel In answering the question concerning how family and beautiful and confident. Me and my body mods make friends react to their body modifications, many Mods noted me feel enough confidence to feel extremely attrac- the negative responses of their parents and relatives, while tive, and in my experience that makes me attractive. stating that their friends are more accepting of their body practices. Mod S08 writes, “My family has never understood Mainstream society defines as abhorrent such modifica- the reasoning behind my modifications and have been unsup- tions as facial or genital piercings, scarring, cutting, branding, portive of my decisions,” and Mod T48 writes, “My parents 8 SAGE Open have not been so accepting of my modifications. My mom Mod M20 addresses the increasing pressure young men even said to me once, ‘How many holes are enough?!’” Mod are experiencing as the target of media images that create S42 shares, “I’ve not told my family about [my tattoos] to and reproduce the ideal masculine body: “Men should be avoid confrontation. I’d rather my short visits home are straight-laced muscle bound healthy clean cut and profes- happy rather than end up with me being shouted at.” sional and girls should all look like models, if not you suck Differential socialization of boys and girls is a given. and you’re not accepted.” Taking this notion a step further, Examples of body control tactics abound in literature and Mod K22 writes, popular media, reinforcing not only strict gender roles but also the expectation of conformance to a cultural ideal, [We are] fed the thought that you should be a provoca- whether that ideal be aesthetic (beauty), material (status), tive, skinny, smart but ditsy, pink plaid wearing col- cognitive (beliefs), or expressive, as in the case of socially lege graduate that drives a BMW or a clean cut acceptable demonstrations of masculine and feminine behav- businessman. There is a fine line between what is okay ior. While my questionnaire did not include the parents and what isn’t. of Mods as potential respondents, parents—as socially and historically situated members of dominant culture—appear Mod H23 notes how controlling images concerning ideal to share the attitudes of mainstream normals when it comes bodies can be internalized and thus affect a person’s to unconventional bodily alterations. In particular, the com- self-concept: ments female Mods relayed concerning their parents’ reac- tions indicate an anxiety on the part of mothers and fathers Male and female bodies seem to be set in a narrow that seems to stem from a fear that their daughter will, through view of what is beautiful and what is not. Females her alternative body practices, alienate a potential life partner. must be thin, decently breasted, and have a pretty Mod S49 illustrates this point: “My dad always got angry at face. Males have a broader range on how they may me and told me I’d never meet a good guy that did anything look to be acceptable. Plastic and cosmetic surgery is useful because of my stretched lobes and my tattoos,” and becoming widely acceptable but it’s shoving people Mod C17 writes, “[The main question is] ‘Don’t you have through a narrow viewfinder on what they think of a hard time dating looking like that?’” Mod A64 writes, themselves. “My mother does not know I have [mods]. She would go nuts.” Mod M02 shares a deep frustration when it comes to Confronting the conformist mentality expected by nor- communicating any aspect of her modifications to her family: mals, Mod K30 writes, “There is too much pressure on men “I try to make [my family] understand what it means to me. and women to keep their bodies looking a certain way in our No matter how much they love me, they will not understand. society. Tall, thin, muscular, blonde, tanned . . . all of these They’ve drawn a line and I’ve crossed it.” make people look like sheep.” As in most aspects of social life, embodied experience One particular comment, by Mod S50, stood out because can be understood in terms of gendered experience. it is a profound observation concerning attitudes toward gen- Nonmainstream body modification—as an embodied, dered appearance: agented endeavor—is no different. As the above statements suggest, how bodies are perceived and treated by conven- Western society is still very male oriented; maybe tional society depends greatly on how that body looks and being part of the group that largely has power confers behaves in accordance with social norms, including accept- partial immunity towards body objectification? able expressions of masculinity and femininity. Survey Women seem to end up more concerned with whether respondents had much to say when answering the question they have the “right” appearance than men do. I catch concerning how male and female bodies are perceived by female students complaining about breast size regu- society, with many of them again pointing to the American larly (too small, too big), but I have yet to find any beauty ideal and (controlling) media images as sources of group of male students complaining about muscle discontent regarding acceptable bodies. Exemplifying the mass, body fat composition, height issues, penis size. power and cultural scope of these controlling images in con- temporary society, Mod E75, a male Mexican national, This comment by Mod S50, who identifies himself as a writes, heterosexual male, warrants special attention because it implies the differential judgments male and female Mods Most people are surprised that someone “like me” experience. Some body practices are more acceptable for (professional, business owner, commercial director, men than they are for women, and vice versa. For example, come from a good family) has body modifications. We being a heavily tattooed and/or pierced woman elicits more make way too much preconceptions and the media comments from normals about sexual promiscuity, attrac- tries to sell us this image of rockers or actors that we tiveness, childbearing, and marriage than it does for male should pursue. Mods, who are often grouped under the “criminal” label. Thomas 9 Mod T82 elaborates this point: “Women with piercings are the body were systematically studied, exploited, exhibited, still looked upon as wild women who are too overtly sexual. and feared (Bogdan, 1988; Cook, 1996; Terry & Urla, Men with modifications are often grouped with White trash 1995). Grotesques of days past were, alternately, targets of or gangsters or other degenerates of society,” and Mod M79 derision and objects of reverence. writes, “Females are definitely looked down upon when they Researcher Robert Bogdan (1988) explains the origins are modified. Men can be a little dirty with a few tattoos, but of two types of freak, each of them historically, geographi- girls are seen as downright skanky gang-related bitches.” cally, physically, and metaphorically dislodged from their Mod S42 shares, own social milieus and then systematically relocated and resituated within a Western context as other. The first type Some people have even had the reaction “you’d be so of freak—the “exotic freak”—is directly connected to the much prettier without all that” when talking about my exploration of the non-Western world in the 18th and 19th modifications and yet made no comment about my centuries. As explorers and natural scientists struck out boyfriend’s tattoos and piercings, which also gives me over the oceans and tributaries to investigate new worlds, the impression it’s okay for males to heavily modify they returned with not only countless—albeit exagger- themselves and yet women should only have their ears ated—stories of bizarre people and unusual cultures but pierced also actual specimens of these cultures, sparking intense curiosity in the American public that provided an opportu- These comments support tattoo and body-play artist nity for the showmen of the age to capitalize on the differ- Sheree Rose’s assertion that “tattoo is one of those big taboos entness of these specimens. for women, although it’s always been something that men could do when they get drunk” (Vale & Juno, 1989, p. 109). Tribal people, brought to the United States with all the In sum, by consciously moving away from conventional accoutrements of their culture out of context, stimu- ideas surrounding ideal (i.e., gendered) bodily appearance lated the popular imagination and kindled belief in and behavior and toward the perceived opposite, Mods races of tailed people, dwarfs, giants, and even people directly confront the social constructs and institutions that with double heads that paralleled creatures of ancient demand a very narrow definition of attractiveness and gen- mythology. The interest thus spawned was an opportu- dered behavior. Mods do this by reappropriating, overtly and nity, a platform, and a backdrop for showmen’s cre- covertly, the controlling images Western society produces, ations. (Bogdan, 1988, p. 6) reproduces, promotes, and expects—the positively sanc- tioned images of smooth, pristine, unblemished, youthful The second category of freak consists of those individuals bodies that operate at a high functionality (defined as beauti- who met all the criteria to be labeled under the medical term ful) and the demonized images of criminal, insane, defect, for people with obvious and, oftentimes, extreme bodily dif- and monstrous (defined as ugly). ference—the monster, the lusus naturae, the “freak of nature.” These were people born with a physical anomaly so severe that they were touted as “born freaks” (Bogdan, 1988), indi- Freak viduals who not only piqued the interest of the medical com- When asked how individuals with nonmainstream body munity but also aroused the curiosity of normals. Born freaks modifications are perceived by mainstream Western soci- elicited reactions of pity and stunned horror, and showmen of ety, and what the general public’s reaction to their specific the age played on audience members’ fears of bodily inva- body modifications is, an overwhelming majority of Mods sion, dysfunction, and disfigurement to entice them inside the made reference to the term freak and how having nonnor- mysterious tent in which the freak was housed. A widely mative physical characteristics can result in this disparag- known example of a born freak who was put on display and ing, dehumanizing label. This is nothing new. Ascribing marketed for the sole benefit of curiosity seekers is Joseph the freak term to individuals who exhibit “monstrous” or Carrey Merrick, the “elephant man.” “abnormal” physical traits has deep roots in antiquated Rachel Adams (1996) suggests the social construction of ideologies concerning race, experimentation in the name of a third type of freak, the “normal freak,” a person of normal medical science, and strict binary categorizations of gender bodily constitution who emphasizes his or her difference (Bogdan, 1988; Cook, 1996; Terry & Urla, 1995). Some from the average person by appropriating a special skill or general characteristics that could earn someone a freak by becoming a “made freak,” someone who does something label included possessing too many or too few body parts, to himself or herself to become unusual enough in appear- having a distorted or “monstrous” form, being much larger/ ance or ability to warrant exhibition. This freak can be found smaller/thinner/fatter/hairier than the average person, pos- in the strongman, the snake charmer, the sword swallower, sessing hair or skin of an anormative color with regard to and the heavily tattooed man or woman. For obvious rea- sex/race/age, or having two or contradictive genders. sons, the concept of the made freak is especially relevant in Historically, individuals with some type of abomination of discussions of nonmainstream body modification. 10 SAGE Open While no less than 43 comments appeared in the ques- other-relatedness and an associated self-relatedness are the tionnaires regarding the freak attribution to those who pos- main characteristics of the communicative body in non- sess a nonnormative physical appearance, the following mainstream body modification. These bodyminds confront statement from Mod H31 profoundly sums up the thoughts contingencies and the action problem of predictability in of the majority of survey respondents. their everyday encounters with normals. However, made freaks tend to be individuals who enjoy the narrative pro- Mainstream Western people automatically assume that cess, engaging normals in a dyadic exchange, thus helping if you have an “extreme” mod there’s something the normal perceive the Mod as just one more human who wrong with you. That you’re a criminal, a freak, the has a story to share; they simply share it through unconven- dregs of the dregs. Right up there with fags, drag tional means. In true communicative body form, Mod J34 spics, niggers, or any other minority that is full of eloquently clarifies this concept: “No matter our color or people that the “mainstream” don’t want to understand religion or wealth or sexuality or body appearance . . . we or know, because hating someone for something silly have a story to tell. Everyone else should be willing to lis- gives them something to feel better about. They can ten,” and Mod S08 shares, “I believe that human expression get up in the morning, look in the mirror, and say “gee is one of the most beautiful and responsible things for a per- at least I’m not fat/gay/Black/have horns implanted in son to do.” my forehead.” As the statements of these made freaks illustrate, in using their bodies to personify identity through the inscriptive Many Mods undertake body projects as a means of expression of the internal landscape, a declaration of body outwardly projecting an internal self-image by inscribing ownership becomes evident. In sharing its narrative, the their bodies with symbolic signifiers that indicate how they communicative bodymind in nonmainstream body modifica- perceive themselves and how they wish to be perceived by tion actively dictates how its physicality is to be understood others. Some Mods feel that their “normal” exterior presen- and evaluated rather than allowing society to ascribe mean- tation does not match their internal perception of how they ing to it. Furthermore, knowing the automatic assumptions “should” look. Several go so far as to say they view their of normals, many made freaks allow themselves to be viewed bodies as anomalous or incomplete without body modifica- initially within a context of deviance (monstrous, criminal, tions, at times using language that implies aesthetic defect or insane) but then challenge those same assumptions through impaired function. As a made freak, Mod A64 elaborates the innovative bodily expression and dyadic social exchange. It related concepts of self-expression and identity this way: is during this transactive exchange that the expressive, com- municative bodymind turns the expected encounter inside Body modification enables me to express the person out, forcing the normal to not only look at, but also really that I truly am. I feel it is a form of art and flesh is my see, dominant culture’s contradictions and dualities. Mod medium. I wouldn’t say that body modification makes L41 illustrates this interactive strategy: me who I am, but if for some reason I take out my jewelry . . . I feel uncomfortable, I feel naked and I When my face was more full of metal I had a lot of feel as if a crucial part of me is missing. people stare at me and little kids nearby would try and touch them. If I get a glare, I can be rude. If they Mod J19 writes, “I will always be changing different parts are curious (you can obviously tell the difference) I of [my body] to complete it or to make it look more like who usually say hi to let them know it is obvious they are I am on the inside and express my values, scene, culture, staring at me and any questions they have I would be opinions, etc.” Mod K22 expands on this point: “[I modify] happy to answer. to be myself the way I see myself. I like feeling free. Expressing myself this way and telling stories on my skin is Deeply rooted in history, the term freak certainly has a my way of growing,” and Mod H23 writes, “It’s purely controlling aspect to it. The term is employed by normals to become an expansion on a personal outlook of myself . . . it’s communicate to Mods that their bodyminds lie far outside an exciting experience and makes me someone of my own the accepted appearance and behavioral norms of Western making.” Mod J34 notes simply, “[body modification] allows society, and that there are consequences for these transgres- me to feel as if I’m bringing what’s inside me out.” sions, such as being stigmatized as less-than-human and/or Several interesting observations are made when analyz- ostracism in the form of social isolation. Mod J15 shares, “I ing the made freak within the framework of Frank’s com- see ‘normal’ people’s reactions and feel alone, ugly and like municative style of body usage. The primary mode of action a freak,” and Mod J12 notes, “It’s like the days of the old undertaken by the communicative body in social interaction circus sideshow.” is recognition. Self-expression (in this case narrative shar- As these comments illustrate, controlling images affect ing in the form of visible symbolic inscription) and a desire not only the subordinated individual or group but also domi- that is conscious and producing in its pursuit of dyadic nant culture as the images are disseminated in everyday Thomas 11 media accounts and common discourses. However, as shared experiences can incite a fear response in members of Collins asserts, controlling images can not only be created dominant culture, resulting in pathologization and stigmatiza- and used to dominate a specific group, promoting stereo- tion of the offending individual, effects that could greatly types and limiting the subjugated group’s access to poten- influence that individual’s sense of self and his or her con- tially liberating symbols, but they can also be reappropriated tinuing formation of identity, both group and individual. By by the stigmatized group and turned into powerful symbols showing agency in altering their physical appearance and/or of liberation, resistance, and reclamation. As Mod A62 function, however, Mods, like all people, stake a claim on shares, “It’s very important to me that I have this kind of their own corporeal presentation, declaring ownership of strength/power represented on my body because it is every- their bodies as well as their individual, social, and political thing I want to be in life.” Bringing the ideas of spiritual identity. In doing so, Mods make the tacit claim that dominant identity, ritual, humanness, and body ownership together, Western social institutions do not—will not—dictate their Mod C32 writes, public presentation or definition of self. If Armando Favazza (1996) is correct in his analysis of cross-cultural body modi- I wanted to be happy with the skin I was in, so I made fication practices, and if these practices are indeed the embod- myself what I am. It’s very spiritual to have that ied expression of universal archetypes residing in our power. I also have strong beliefs in the significance of collective consciousness, nonmainstream body modifica- modification throughout human history. I feel that it is tion can be viewed simply as one more manifestation of a a part of what makes us human to modify ourselves. I cross-culturally shared curiosity about the human body and like the feeling of having that connection to the rest of its limits. the world, past and present. It’s very grounding to In sum, by inscribing their bodies with symbols that know that while we may be going off the deep end as communicate entire biographies and ideologies, Mods and a culture, I can still have a small link to the people who their embodied practices lend support to various theories of lived with the land instead of against it. the body while challenging common assumptions about the body. Indeed, it could be argued that Mods are simply undertaking the most profound human endeavor—the Conclusion enduring search for identity and meaning, the embodied This article explores the ways in which contemporary non- quest for connection and recognition. mainstream Mods facilitate daily social interaction as a Declaration of Conflicting Interests stigmatized other. Mods, as social agents, act on their envi- ronment as well as allow their environment to act on them. The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with As a result, they are highly aware of the unique contingen- respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this cies presented in social encounters due to their anormative article. appearance, demonstrating a deep awareness of how con- Funding ventional society views them—as the mentally unstable nut, the ugly man or woman, the monstrous freak. The author(s) received no financial support for the research and/or Because dominant society messages through controlling authorship of this article. images what men and women should (want to) look like, the Note comments of Mods demonstrate that their unconventional body practices directly challenge society’s expectations of 1. To challenge Descartes’s assertion that the body and the mind beauty and health norms, gender expression and roles, cor- are distinctly separate aspects of self, I use the term bodymind poreal presentation, and symbolic inscription simply by to illustrate the obvious connections between the two. moving away from Western appearance ideals (beauty) and References toward its perceived opposite (monstrosity). By blatantly opening, puncturing, excising, scarring, stretching, burning, Adams, R. (1996). An American Tail: Freaks, gender, and the incor- nullifying, implanting, and tattooing various body parts, poration of history in Katherine Dunn’s Geek Love. In R. G. Mods defy accepted notions of skin as something pristine, Thomson (Ed.), Freakery: Cultural spectacles of the extraor- pain as something to be avoided, body integrity as something dinary body (pp. 277-290). New York: New York University to be preserved, and self as a fixed and rigid concept. As the Press. testimonials of Mods show, their nonconformance to these Bensler, J., & Paauw, D. (2003). Apotemnophilia masquerading as normative notions has earned them the label of deviant—the medical morbidity. Retrieved from http://www.medscape.com/ dangerous and discreditable outsider, the freak that escapes viewarticle/459183 definition and categorization, the perplexing oddity that Bogdan, R. (1988). Freak show: Presenting human oddities for challenges what it means in Western society to be a man or a amusement and profit. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago woman, indeed what it means to be human. Press. Furthermore, as the self-statements of Mods show, images Camphausen, R. C. (1997). Return of the tribal: A celebration of that are perceived as lying outside the realm of commonly body adornment. Rochester, NY: Park Street Press. 12 SAGE Open Collins, P. H. (2000). Black feminist thought: Knowledge, con- Musafar, F. (2002). Spirit flesh. Santa Fe, NM: Arena Editions. sciousness, and the politics of empowerment. New York, NY: Myers, J. (1992). Nonmainstream body modification: Genital Routledge. piercing, branding, burning, and cutting. Journal of Contempo- Cook, J. W. (1996). Of men, missing links, and nondescripts: rary Ethnography, 2, 267-306. The strange career of P.T. Barnum’s “What is it?” exhibition. O’Neill, J. (1985). Five bodies: The human shape of modern In R. G. Thomson (Ed.), Freakery: Cultural spectacles of the society. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. extraordinary body (pp. 139-157). New York: New York Uni- Orlan (2005). I Do Not Want to Look Like . . . In M. Fraser & versity Press. M. Greco (Eds.), The body: A reader (pp. 312-315). New York, Dryer, D. C. (2007). Characterizing intentional ordeals. Available NY: Routledge. from www.networkedblogs.com Pitts, V. (2000). Visibly queer: Body technologies and sexual poli- Edelman, D. (2000). The thin red line: Social power and the open tics. Sociological Quarterly, 41, 443-463. Pitts, V. (2003). In the flesh: The cultural politics of body modifica- body. Retrieved from http://www.csa.com/discoveryguides/ tion. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan. redline/overview.php Pitts, V. (2006). The body, beauty, and psychosocial power. In N. Favazza, A. R. (1996). Bodies under siege: Self-mutilation and Chen & H. Moglen (Eds.), Bodies in the making: Transgres- body modification in culture and psychiatry. Baltimore, MD: sions and transformations (pp. 28-46). Santa Cruz, CA: New Johns Hopkins University Press. Pacific Press. Featherstone, M. (1982). The body in consumer culture. In M. Rosenblatt, D. (1997). The antisocial skin: Structure, resistance, Featherstone, M. Hepworth, & B. Turner (Eds.), The body: and “Modern Primitive” adornment in the United States. Cul- Social process and cultural theory (pp. 170-196). London, Eng- tural Anthropology, 12, 287-334. land: SAGE. Rush, J. A. (2005). Spiritual tattoo: A cultural history of tattooing, M. Featherstone, (Ed.). (2000). Body modification. London, Eng- piercing, scarification, branding, and implants. Berkeley, CA: land: SAGE. Frog. Frank, A. W. (1991). For a sociology of the body: An analytical Shilling, C. (2003). The body and social theory. London, England: review. In M. Featherstone, M. Hepworth, & B. Turner (Eds.), SAGE. The body: Social process and cultural theory (pp. 36-102). Sweetman, P. (1999). Anchoring the (postmodern) self? Body mod- London, England: SAGE. ification, fashion and identity. In M. Featherstone (Ed.), Body Gay, K., & Whittington, C. (2002). Body marks: Tattooing, pierc- and society: Body modification (pp. 51-76). Thousand Oaks, ing, and scarification. Brookfield, CT: Millbrook Press. CA: SAGE. Gimlin, D. L. (2002). Body work: Beauty and self-image in Ameri- Synnott, A. (1993). The body social: Symbolism, self, and society. can culture. Berkeley: University of California Press. New York, NY: Routledge. Goffman, E. (1963). Stigma: Notes on the management of spoiled Terry, J., & Urla, J. Urla (Eds.). (1995). Deviant bodies. Blooming- identity. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster. ton: Indiana University Press. Grosz, E. (1994). Volatile bodies: Toward a corporeal feminism. Thesander, M. (1997). The feminine ideal. London, England: Reak- Bloomington: Indiana University Press. tion Books. Larratt, S. (2003). ModCon: The secret world of extreme body mod- R. Thomson, R. (Ed.). (1996). Freakery: Cultural spectacles of the ification. Canada: BME Books. extraordinary body. New York: New York University Press. Lemert, E. M. (1951). Social pathology: A systematic approach Turner, B. S. (1984). The body and society. Oxford, UK: Basil to the theory of sociopathic behavior. New York, NY: McGraw- Blackwell. Hill. Vale, V., & Juno, A. (1989). Re/Search #12: Modern Primitives. Mercury, M. (2000). Pagan fleshworks: The alchemy of body modi- Eugene, OR: Re/Search Publications. fication. Rochester, VT: Park Street Press. Mills, R. (2005). Suspended animation: Pain, pleasure and punish- Bio ment in medieval culture. London, England: Reaktion Books. Musafar, F. (1996). Body play: State of grace or sickness? In A. Morgen L. Thomas earned her master’s degree from the University Favazza (Ed.), Bodies under siege: Self-mutilation and body of Colorado. She is a writer, mother, student, and adjunct instructor modification in culture and psychiatry (pp. 325-334). Balti- of sociology. She is currently researching body reclamation rituals more, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press. specific to men. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png SAGE Open SAGE

Sick/Beautiful/Freak: Nonmainstream Body Modification and the Social Construction of Deviance

Thomas, Morgen L.
SAGE Open , Volume 2 (4): 1 – Nov 22, 2012
Download PDF
12 pages

Loading next page...
 
/lp/sage/sick-beautiful-freak-nonmainstream-body-modification-and-the-social-MJyyLK1yqq

References (36)

Publisher
SAGE
Copyright
Copyright © 2022 by SAGE Publications Inc, unless otherwise noted. Manuscript content on this site is licensed under Creative Commons Licenses.
ISSN
2158-2440
eISSN
2158-2440
DOI
10.1177/2158244012467787
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Nonmainstream body modification practitioners actively demonstrate a confounding agency that often results in the stigmatization of their physical characteristics, their moral constitution, and their behavior. By inscribing meaning and identity in visible ways rather than allowing society to project expectations onto them based on their gender, age, race, sexual orientation, and so on, nonmainstream body modifiers present a unique challenge to American conceptions of what is healthy, what is beautiful, and what is human. Using Patricia Hill Collins’ idea of controlling images, Erving Goffman’s conceptions of stigma, and Arthur W. Frank’s styles of body usage typology, this article examines constructions of deviance within the embodied framework of unconventional body modification practices. Keywords body modification, deviance, stigma, identity, health, illness, beauty ideals rather than allowing society to project expectations onto Introduction them based on their gender, age, race, sexual orientation, and Contemporary Western culture views the practice of non- so on, nonmainstream body modifiers present a unique mainstream (extreme) body modification as, alternately, an challenge to American conceptions of what is healthy, what attention-seeking trend, the sign of a masochistic or sadistic is beautiful, and what is human. In addition, because of the personality, a symbol of affiliation with a deviant group, or highly stigmatizing and discrediting effects of possessing a symptom of psychological instability. Therefore, dominant nonmainstream body modifications (“mods”), body modifi- society often questions the motivations and mental capacity cation practitioners (“Mods”) themselves are often labeled by of individuals who engage in nonmainstream body modifi- dominant culture as monsters, curios, and sick freaks in des- cation and, in the process, ascribes labels of social deviance, perate need of mental health intervention. Because of the personality disorder, and/or psychopathology to those who deep social implications of such labels, this article examines modify their bodies in unconventional ways. Although some the concept of freakery/monstrosity as a salient theme found individuals who engage in body modification activities do through analysis of adult respondents’ surveys, and examines exhibit outstanding psychological comorbidity, research dominant culture’s tendency to conflate bodily appearance shows that body modifiers are not at any higher risk of men- with psychopathology and Western beauty norms with defini- tal illness than the general population (Favazza, 1996; tions of masculinity and femininity. Larratt, 2003; Musafar, 1996). To interrogate these and other common assumptions, my Review of the Literature research focuses on the individual as the agented subject of social action rather than the passive object onto which society The literature describes myriad themes when it comes to the projects meaning. Because nonmainstream body modifiers motivations behind and social implications of body modifi- actively demonstrate a confounding agency that often results cation, from the personal to the political, the social to the in the stigmatization of their physical characteristics, their pathological (Bensler & Paauw, 2003; Favazza, 1996; moral constitution, and their behavior, my assertion is that it Featherstone, 2000; Larratt, 2003; Musafar, 2002; Pitts, is through the conscious process of reappropriating and rede- University of Colorado, Colorado Springs, USA fining controlling images (Collins, 2000) that nonmainstream body modifiers (perceived as insane, ugly, monstrous) recap- Corresponding Author: ture a measure of power from dominant society and, in the Morgen L. Thomas, University of Colorado, 1420 Austin Bluffs Pkwy., process, prove their humanity to others. Furthermore, I sug- Colorado Springs, CO 80918, USA Email: mthomas@uccs.edu gest that by inscribing meaning and identity in visible ways 2 SAGE Open 2003; Sweetman, 1999; Vale & Juno, 1989). However, five particularly salient when considering body practices that, main themes seem apparent in the literature. because of their overt unconventionality, lie far outside what The first theme is tribal ritual/identification with an indig- mainstream society deems acceptable for male and female enous culture (Camphausen, 1997; Gay & Whittington, 2002; bodies as far as gender, sexuality, and appearance norms. Mercury, 2000; Musafar, 2002; Rush, 2005; Vale & Juno, The fifth theme prevalent in the literature is pathology/ 1989). As technology advances, so does our human need for mental illness (Bensler & Paauw, 2003; Favazza, 1996). This connection and identification. The “modern primitive” move- theme is common to psychological discussions of body modi- ment remains in full force as individuals seek group affilia- fication. Body modification—also known as body alteration, tion with others who share their cross-cultural interests in body invention, body adornment, body technology, body aes- body rites and intentional ordeals, characterized as “physi- thetics, body projects, and body customization—has been a cally, emotionally, and spiritually challenging activities that means of personal, social, and political expression in are pursued for their potential psychological, social, and spir- American society since the early 1970s (Vale & Juno, 1989; itual benefits” (Dryer, 2007). Musafar, 2002). Although forms of body modification such The second theme is reclamation of the body (Orlan, 2005; as tattooing have been prevalent among the American work- Pitts, 2000, 2003; Sweetman, 1999). Many Western body ing class since the turn of the last century, and was used to modifiers view the physical body as a potential landscape for indicate group membership status or familial connections, by representation and inscription, a site of political and personal mid-20th century, this type of body mark had become more negotiation. These themes are not new, however, as noted by closely associated with counterculture groups such as motor- contemporary body theorists Bryan S. Turner (1984), Arthur cycle and street gangs as well as those who had spent time in W. Frank (1991), Chris Shilling (2003), Victoria Pitts (2003), prison (Edelman, 2000; Mercury, 2000; Myers, 1992; Pitts, Anthony Synnott (1993), John O’Neill (1985), Elizabeth 2003). This visual signifier of affiliation officially relegated Grosz (1994), and Mike Featherstone (1982). Across time members of these subcultures to the socially constructed cat- and space, the corporeal body has been a site of discursive egory of deviant in the public consciousness, a problem cur- debate for, as these theorists suggest, embodiment is key to rently faced by many contemporary body modifiers. Today, such systemic phenomena as sexism, racism, ageism, and body modifiers cite many reasons other than social affiliation other sociocultural concerns. Without a physical body to when discussing their particular forms of body alteration, and oppress, abuse, and subordinate, such acts as lynching and claim that their actions are in no way an indication of an unsta- rape, for example, would be impossible. Thus, the very fact of ble mind, as some literature suggests (Bensler & Paauw, 2003; our physical embodiment, and the explicit auto-manipulation Favazza, 1996) but rather a process of expression, invention, of the corporeal landscape by self and other, calls into ques- and reception (Larratt, 2003; Musafar, 2002; Myers, 1992; tion the status quo of body politics, beauty ideals, race rela- Orlan, 2005; Pitts, 2003; Sweetman, 1999). tions, and gender norms as well as many other sociological In rebuttal to mainstream society’s ascriptions of mon- discussions (Bogdan, 1988; Grosz, 1994; Pitts, 2000, 2003; strosity, deviance, and mental illness, Mods point out that in Terry & Urla, 1995; Thomson, 1996). fact all people modify their bodies, whether by means of The third theme is sexual enhancement/body adornment. commercial cosmetic application, hair dye, aerobic exercise With the sexual revolution of the 1960s and 1970s, the body and weight-lifting, dieting, or plastic surgery (Featherstone, became a focal point for inscribing sexual preferences and 1982; Gimlin, 2002; Pitts, 2006; Sweetman, 1999; Thesander, freedoms, a site of pleasure and pain, as well as a particular 1997). They assert that body modification—in particular, the kind of sexual ownership—via adornment—and decoration signification of the corporeal body as a symbolic landscape to (Larratt, 2003; Musafar, 2002; Vale & Juno 1989). be used and manipulated as a means to reinforce or dismantle The fourth theme is self-expression/identity construction common cultural assumptions, reinforce societal norms, cre- (Camphausen, 1997; Gay & Whittington, 2002; Larratt, ate identity and/or status, or influence the larger social body— 2003; Mercury, 2000; Musafar, 2002; Pitts, 2000, 2003; Vale has been practiced in one form or another for centuries and is & Juno, 1989). Some writers have noted that by modifying evident across gender, class, and racial lines, transcending their appearance in what some label monstrous ways, body socioeconomic and cultural boundaries (Favazza, 1996; modifiers are in fact reifying the stereotypes and associated Mills, 2005; Musafar, 2002; Rosenblatt, 1997). behavioral expectations they claim to be resisting through their body modification practices (Adams, 1996; Bogdan, Theoretical Considerations 1988; Edelman, 2000; Pitts, 2003). One example of this pro- posed reification is the modern day “freak” show, in which Because this article examines constructions of bodily devi- individuals with anomalous bodies put themselves on display ance, the term deviant warrants clarification. Erich Goode, in performance settings for the entertainment of “normals” following Lemert’s (1951) discussion of primary and sec- (Bogdan, 1988; Cook, 1996; Goffman, 1963). Another ondary deviation, defines extreme deviance in terms of example is the association of tattoos with a criminal stereo- “behavior, beliefs, or physical traits that are so far outside type, that is, prison tattoos. The concept of “monstrosity” is the norm that they elicit extremely negative reactions” Thomas 3 (Goode, 2008, p. ix). Whereas primary deviation refers to CONTROL simple nonnormative behavior that may or may not elicit punishment, condemnation, or scorn from the members of PredictableConngent any given group, secondary deviation refers to the more Disciplined Dominang Lacking Dissociated serious and pervasive acts of deviance that can result in (Regimentaon) (Force) DESIRE SELF-RELATEDNESS deviance labeling on the part of mainstream society, or what Mirroring Communicave Goode calls “the audience.” Deviance labeling is a process (Consumpon) (Recognion) Producing Associated whereby members of the in-group begin to view the rule Monadic Dyadic violator as a deviant rather than viewing the act itself as deviant. The result is the internalization of the deviant label OTHER-RELATEDNESS on the part of the norm violator, whereby the violator begins Figure 1. Arthur W. Frank’s styles of body usage to view himself or herself as a deviant rather than simply someone who committed a deviant act. The label, in essence, becomes an important component of his or her regarding specific action problems. The four styles of body actual identity. Both primary and secondary deviance defi- usage are the disciplined body, the dominating body, the mir- nitions are crucial to understanding how Mods view them- roring body, and the communicative body (Figure 1). selves, how they view society-at-large, and how they think mainstream society views them. It is worth noting here that Method deviance is not inherent to the individual committing the norm violation. Rather it is a label imposed on the norm- The primary research instrument was a qualitative survey breaker based on the reactions of those around him or her, questionnaire, the URL link to which was posted on the fore- and is a product of commonly understood and widely most website designed specifically for nonmainstream body accepted cultural norms and their perceived violation. modifiers (www.bmezine.com). The questionnaire included Hand-in-hand with acts of social deviation is the concept an informed consent page, 6 demographic questions, and 15 of stigma or disgrace. Erving Goffman (1963) proposes three open-ended questions concerning motivation, social resis- sources of stigma. The first, an abomination of the body, is tance, family, and views of mainstream society’s perceptions defined as a physical characteristic or trait that is either an concerning gendered bodies and nonmainstream body modi- aesthetic violation or a physical impairment. The second is a fications. Only adult participants (age 18 and above) who blemish of individual character, defined as a weak will or met the operational definition of nonmainstream body modi- unnatural passions. The third source of stigma is that which fication were considered (see Table 1). Respondents ranged is transmitted through lineage, such as race or religion. For in age from 18 to 47 with an almost even split between being analysis purposes, this article largely incorporates Goffman’s employed and being a student. The total number of self- first and second sources of stigma—an abomination of the reported males was 20, with a total of 55 respondents self- body (violations of normative appearance) and a blemish of reporting as female. One respondent reported being individual character (pursuit of unnatural passions), which female-to-male transgender, 2 respondents identified as often earn Mods a deviant identity in the eyes of mainstream androgynous, and 1 respondent declined to answer. Twenty- Western society. In addition, Goffman’s term normal(s) is three females reported being married or in a relationship; 25 used to indicate members of mainstream (conventional) females reported being single. Nine males reported being society as compared with individuals who occupy a stigma- married or in a relationship; 10 males reported being single. tized status, such as those who practice nonmainstream body Five females and 1 male reported being gay, bisexual, or modification. queer. One female respondent reported being in a long-term To illustrate the interpersonal strategies many Mods use to slave/master relationship. A qualitative content analysis was neutralize potentially negative reactions within specific social conducted using an inductive approach. Confidentiality and environments, Arthur W. Frank’s (1991) styles of body usage anonymity issues were handled in accordance with institu- typology will also be referred to. For Frank, the corporeal tional review board (IRB) protocol and per the informed body is an essential component in how individuals experience consent page indicating that actual names would not be used. their bodies not only as active agents but also as socially To completely avoid the potential identification of respon- constructed and constituted entities whose contingency is part dents, any reference to a specific respondent or direct quote and parcel of the social process. Frank offers four dimen- taken from a questionnaire is acknowledged only by the first sions, or “action problems,” that a body must confront in letter of the first name provided by the respondent, followed social interaction with other bodies: control (predictable or by his or her survey number. For example, if the respondent contingent), desire (lacking or producing), other-relatedness provided the name “Chris” and Chris was the 23rd respon- (monadic or dyadic), and self-relatedness (alienation from or dent, the attribution shown would be “Mod C23.” association with corporeality). Furthermore, Frank argues Although some scholars may consider the Internet a ques- that individuals, as social actors, employ a primary style of tionable and unreliable venue for gathering social scientific body usage to accomplish tasks and reach their goals data, the nature of this research, with regards to discreditable 4 SAGE Open Table 1. Nonmainstream Body Modifications Gauging/elongation: Earlobes, anal, nipple, penile, scrotal, labial Skin: Branding, cutting, scarring, keloiding Chiseling/scalpeling: Bone, cartilage Tattooing: Facial, full body, ocular, anomalously placed Piercing: Genital, facial, anomalously placed Genital: Bifurcation (splitting), saline/silicone injection/pumping, inversion, excision, penile subincision (cutting underside of the penis), superincision (cutting both the underside and top of the penis), incision, bisection, labial or penile frenectomy (removal of restricting ligament), meatotomy (splitting of underside of the glans penis) Implants: Genital, ocular, subdermal, microdermal, transdermal, beading, teeth Nullification/negation: Genital, extremity, phalange, carpal, ocular, nipple, teeth Oral: Teeth filing, tongue bifurcation (splitting), lingual frenectomy (removal of restricting ligament), piercing, tattooing Other: Any other body modification that would be considered nonmainstream by Western societal standards identities, mandated that the population researched for this nonmainstream body modification. This definition therefore study be assured a level of anonymity so as not to stigmatize excludes conventional earlobe, tongue, nose, navel, and eye- them further. Therefore, approaching potential respondents brow piercings, traditional male circumcision, and the prac- via online forums that already offered a level of control to tice of genital mutilation on female children in some African their members over issues of impression management and Middle Eastern societies (see Table 1). seemed the most efficacious method for gathering transpar- ent data, offering respondents the freedom to express them- Sick/Beautiful/Freak: Confronting selves without fear of negative sanctions and public exposure. Controlling Images An unanticipated result of posting an open link on a web forum was that it allowed Mods from outside the United Through detailed content analysis of the returned surveys, States to respond. In the end, this served to broaden the scope several themes emerged, highlighting the pervasiveness of of perspectives concerning nonmainstream body modifica- specific controlling images that nonmainstream body modi- tion in Western societies. fiers must confront in their daily interactions with normals. The first is the attribution of psychopathology, or a “sick” mind. The second is the normative perception of modified Operational Definitions bodies as being less beautiful because they fall outside con- There are numerous definitions of body modification, so it is ventional gender norms and beauty ideals, and the third is necessary to define this term. Body modification is generally the attribution of monstrosity, or “freak,” which implies a defined as any permanent or semipermanent, voluntary normative view of nonmainstream body modifiers as being alteration of the human body that is not medically mandated. less than human. The following section examines these con- Bodily alterations that are commonly accepted under the trolling images and the impact they have not only on the plastic surgery umbrella, diet and exercise regimes, and pro- social interactions Mods have with normals in daily life but cedures such as permanent and nonpermanent cosmetic also on identity construction processes and interpersonal application fall under this definition of body modification. communication styles. Nonmainstream body modification in my research is defined as any permanent or semipermanent, voluntary alteration of Sick the human body that is not medically mandated and that transgresses and challenges common assumptions and Skin—as private canvas and public target—has played a expectations of bodily presentation and/or aesthetic, and role in every aspect of social interaction and construction of therefore may be considered extreme and/or deviant by self since the dawn of humanity. As such, the highly visible members of mainstream Western society. Therefore, conven- sensorial human exterior is vulnerable to what Patricia Hill tional plastic surgery, while permanent/semipermanent and Collins (2000) terms controlling images—symbols of presumably voluntary, is not included in my definition of inscription that are projected by dominant society onto the nonmainstream body modification. Tattoos and piercings, in bodyminds of people, individually and collectively, to cre- general, are not considered. There is an exception to this ate and promote stereotypes. According to Collins, stereo- exclusion, however. Full-body tattoos/piercings, genital tat- types serve two primary functions: (a) They serve to toos/piercings, facial tattoos/piercings, and tattoos/piercings conceal or normalize oppression by making it seem like that may be considered within mainstream society’s stan- something the subjugated person wants or something that is dards as egregiously norm-breaking, unconventionally fundamental to the subjugated person’s inherent nature and placed, and/or excessive may fall under the definition of (b) they serve to influence people, consciously and subcon- Thomas 5 sciously, into behaving in certain ways (Collins, 2000). In One goal of the communicative body, particularly the Collins’s view, controlling images entail the conjoining of communicative body in illness, is to free itself from societal different features (i.e., race, class, gender, sexuality) and codes that constrain expression so that it can seek out new complicate the dynamic between acts of oppression and acts codes of its own invention (Frank, 1991). One way the com- of resistance. municative body does this is by sharing the personal story of One controlling image that Mods directly challenge is its corporeal journey. In doing so, the individual has the the notion that skin (particularly female skin), the body’s opportunity to neutralize the fear, confusion, shock, anger, protective external barrier, should never be breached, and despair that often accompany a diagnosis. In the case of marked, or otherwise “damaged,” unless these practices nonmainstream body modification, it is mainstream society serve to move an individual closer to a dominant ideal of (normals) that diagnose and ascribe illness to the bodyminds attractiveness. Mods, by virtue of their overtly marked of Mods. appearance and pursuit of “unnatural passions,” do not meet Many Mods employ interactive strategies in an attempt to the standards of health as defined by dominant culture. actively neutralize the fear, confusion, and shock their appear- Therefore, because Western society continues to create and ance sometimes elicits. One way Mods mediate others’ perpetuate arbitrary dualisms in every aspect of human reactions to them and reappropriate the controlling image of behavior, there is only one other category available to nor- illness—thus creating new narratives surrounding mental mals in which to locate Mods—that of the unwell, the sick, and physical health—is by responding in an unanticipated physically and psychologically. According to the comments manner, interrupting a potentially negative social exchange made by many survey respondents, Mods are regularly by calling out in the normal a wholly novel response that judged by mainstream Western society as psychologically forces the normal’s recognition of the Mod as human. Mod unsound (i.e., mentally ill) and therefore potentially danger- H29 illustrates this transactive approach: “I get asked ques- ous to themselves and others. Elaborating on the illness tions which I wouldn’t mind if people were polite about it. motif, Mod M20 notes that Mods are viewed as “freaks, But just because they’re not polite doesn’t mean I’m not sadists, dirty, worthless, and insane.” going to be,” and Mod S42 writes, “I’ve never been rude to The language used in psychological literature implies, someone asking about mods, and I think that can influence not so covertly, that individuals who intentionally cut their reactions.” Mod M01 writes, “Some [people] seem themselves, burn themselves, or otherwise inflict pain on weirded out at first, but most are understanding after they themselves, for whatever reason, suffer from some inherent meet me and find out I’m not an asshole.” Mod S49 uses mental defect or have experienced some type of emotional humor to neutralize the encounter: “I get a lot of people trauma in their lives that drives them to harm themselves. asking me if it hurt, how I got them done and stuff. I just The implication is that these individuals are in need of tell younger teenagers that I got a giant hole punch and they intensive treatment to “correct” the disorder (Favazza, 1996; actually believe me most of the time.” Mod H31 notes the Pitts, 2003). Medical institutions, in particular, seem to have efforts of some normals to establish a familiar kinship: “Most categorization and pathologization of difference as their often than not I get curiosity. ‘Wow, did that hurt?’ ‘How primary goals, whether that difference manifests in “devi- many tattoos do you have?’ ‘I have a tattoo! Wanna see?’ It’s ant” sexuality, transgression from the White male norm nice because 5 years ago that almost never happened.” (i.e., the pathologization and subsequent medicalization of Elaborating on the curiosity of normals, Mod S50 writes, gynecological processes) or seeking a nonnormative appear- ance by having silicone horns subdermally implanted in Generally, I don’t have any issues with people . . . one’s head. Mod R63 elaborates on normals’ tendency to children are honest though. I see children staring at me connect body modification with emotional trauma: as their parents try to drag them along. Children want “Someone once asked me if I was abused as a child and if to look at someone that looks different, but parents that was the reason I hated my body enough to do every- don’t want to be caught staring. I’ve caught a few thing I do to it,” and Mod H31 notes that “mainstream people trying to surreptitiously take my picture. Western people automatically assume that if you have an ‘extreme’ mod there’s something wrong with you.” And Mod M02 highlights how Mods, as a stigmatized When confronted with others’ assumptions of illness or group, feel they have to employ certain tactics to prove their emotional trauma, Mods are quick to defend their body prac- mental stability: tices, differentiating themselves from “self-mutilators” and those who exhibit some type of documented psychological To me the mods feel natural and normal so I’m not infirmity. Analyzing nonmainstream body modification going to announce them, but on the other hand, I do take within the context of the illness motif and the communica- my time explaining them because I don’t want [people] tive style of body usage (see Figure 1) sheds light on how to think there’s anything mentally wrong with me. Mods reappropriate the controlling image of mental illness, turning this image and its social implications into possibility Mod H23 demonstrates personal agency (with a hint of rather than limitation. social resistance) in her interactions: “The general public 6 SAGE Open believes I am over the edge, crazy, not in the right mind, and and incapable. By restructuring the illness motif, one of I enjoy every moment that I can prove their shallow outlooks many controlling images constructed around Western ideas false.” of ableness, and creating new narratives surrounding health In terms of the (ill) communicative body in nonmain- and ability, Mods actively and tacitly attempt to counteract stream body modification, this process of story sharing society’s projection of pathology onto their bodyminds. In serves to create social cohesion rather than the monadic iso- this process, Mods inscribe new meanings and create new lation that many Mods experience as a result of their devi- codes that assert not only their humanity but their mental ance label. Furthermore, a dyadic other-relatedness and an and physical health as well. associated self-relatedness are achieved when Mods actively pursue interactions that result in the healthy establishment Beautiful of their humanity and their sanity because “when illness is told, its lack becomes producing, and as desire becomes Like such body practices as pumping iron, dieting, using producing, contingency becomes possibility” (Frank, 1991, hair dye and applying cosmetics, as well as socially accept- p. 88). This narrative sharing opens new possibilities for able plastic surgery techniques, some nonmainstream body normals and Mods alike to realize their own bodies in rela- modifications reflect an individual’s desire to achieve a tion to others who share the corporeal story not only of perfected version of himself or herself. However, what is weakness and affliction but also of pleasure and imagina- considered the “perfect” or “beautiful” body is greatly tion. Among the unwell and infirm, as among performance dependent on cultural definitions of feminine and masculine artists who use their bodies as a means to communicate dis- bodies and how they may or may not digress from the char- sent and resistance, narratives are fundamentally embodied acteristics and expectations of gendered behavior and and therefore vital to the mutual recognition of bodies and appearance. lives as interwoven with the bodies and lives of others Mods who cite aesthetics as a primary motivating factor (Frank, 1991). behind their body modification practices enjoy adorning and Cultural psychiatrist Armando Favazza (1996) empha- decorating their bodies in unique ways because they find the sizes the need of psychological and psychiatric institutions to end result aesthetically and artistically pleasing (i.e., beauti- have a more inclusive, holistic view of “self-mutilative” ful), despite the social ramifications of their body practices. behaviors, asserting that reducing these acts to nothing more Demonstrating this confounding agency, Mod A64 explains, than a passive attempt at suicide, a cry for help, the sign of an afflicted mind, or an attention-seeking scheme is a gross I find body modifications of all types to be aestheti- oversimplification of a very complex aspect of human cally enhancing. I like the way you can accentuate a behavior. particular feature of your body with a modification, or draw attention away from a part of your body you find It is clear that the individual human body mirrors the less desirable. collective social body, and each continually creates and sustains the other. Misperceptions of reality, feel- Contemporary media outlets reproduce depictions of the ings of guilt, negative self-images, antisocial acts, and young, hypersexual, and/or infantilized female body and the all the other symptoms we associate with personal youthful, hypermasculinized male body, constantly messag- mental illness defy understanding without reference to ing through these images how men and women, girls and the psychological, social, cultural, and physical integ- boys, should want to look. Any physical presentation that rity of the communal “body.” (Favazza, 1996, p. xiii) transgresses these normalized (controlling) images, whether it’s the morbidly obese woman or the effeminate man, is met In other words, situating the individual behavior within with disdain, judgment or, in some cases, outright aggression a broader social context is crucial to understanding the on the part of normals. These controlling images are often motivation behind phenomena such as nonmainstream associated, overtly and covertly, with relevant messages body modification. Mods are not chronically, terminally, or regarding marriageability, fertility, strength, youth, vibrancy, psychologically ill simply because they choose to modify and healthy body integrity—all of which are symbolic indi- their bodies in nonnormative ways. However, mainstream cators of successful bodily presentation according to Western society, in its quest for continued binary categorization beauty and gender norms. opportunities, ascribes illness to heavily modified bodies in Accepted body modification procedures such as breast an attempt to understand what is healthy and what is not. implants, liposuction of fat cells, relocation and tightening of Healthy, within the context of corporeal bodies, is defined facial tissue, and silicone implants designed for the cheeks, as a pristine, smooth, firm, youthful, capable presentation. buttocks, and pectoral areas of men’s bodies are just a few Unhealthy, by dual opposition then, is defined at the oppo- examples of Frank’s mirroring style of body usage. Not only site end of the dichotomous framework that bodies are often do these practices make the body predictable in many ways forced into—in this case deficient, blemished, flabby, old, but they also help to recursively reproduce unconscious Thomas 7 desire, which manifests in isolated monadic consumerist burning, and tattooing of the skin. The perception of abhor- behavior. By ceaselessly producing in individuals a superfi- rence on the part of normals is what makes these acts deviant, cial desire aimed at the materiality of things that consumer not the act itself, especially when compared with more con- culture promotes as necessary (youthful appearance, on- ventional body enhancement practices that reify and repro- demand sexual function, etc.), certain capitalist institutions duce the American beauty ideal, rewarding and privileging and the values they promote become more firmly rooted in those who strive toward the positively sanctioned representa- the collective consciousness regarding what is available for tions of what a woman or a man “should” look like. As Mods immediate consumption—physically, emotionally, spiritu- show through the deliberate cutting, burning, marking, and ally, and mentally. Because of this, the mirroring body style scarring of their flesh, definitions of beauty do not always is of particular interest when considering the divergent con- follow social protocol. These forms of appearance norm- sumer practices of Mods and the predictability they seek breaking can and do result in scorn and ostracism. Mod J34 through a contradictory form of consumption that they find illustrates this point, “Society in general is quite hateful, and beautiful and make apparent to others through their highly I’ve yet to figure out why some color on one’s skin or a few visible modified appearance, the presentation of which pieces of metal alter who a person is in the eyes of another.” causes an expected outcome, thus offering the Mod a mea- Mod J19, also noting Western society’s emphasis on appear- sure of control in social encounters. ance and the consequences of having a nonnormative physi- As noted, Goffman’s (1963) first source of stigma (an cal presentation, writes, “[Mods] are often stared at and cast abomination of the body) is particularly relevant to non- aside because they look different from everyone else. I find it mainstream body modifiers and their lived experience, as sickening that [Mods] are not treated with respect or like a any perceived violation of the corporeal landscape forces a human being, they are treated like an animal.” The concept of reconfiguring of common assumptions about body integrity, humanness and the desire of the bodymind to not only com- appearance, and function not only for the modifying indi- prehend but also to prove its humanity is an interesting com- vidual but for conventional society as well. Many Mods ponent of the interactive social strategies used by individuals implicate the American beauty ideal of smooth, pristine, who practice nonmainstream body modification. firm skin as one source of their discreditable status and their By marking their bodies in highly visible and potentially rebellion, whether social or personal, against it. discrediting ways, as opposed to adopting routines that vali- Illustrating the perceived hypocrisy of normals who dif- date and reward aesthetic conformance, Mods seemingly ferentiate between mainstream and nonmainstream body move away from the American beauty ideal of pristine, modification, positively sanctioning one practice while unblemished, youthful skin and body presentation, and demonizing the other, Mod H31 writes, toward what dominant society deems an unacceptable appearance and body presentation. In showing a unique kind No one looks twice if you’ve got a nose job or boob of agency when it comes to their consumer habits and implants, or if you get botox once a week . . . choosing tastes—an agency that could be interpreted as blatant rejec- to be modified does not make someone sick, twisted, tion of bodily conformance—these Mods directly challenge insane, a satanist, or any other negative attribute. Frank’s construct of the mirroring body as a purely passive [Mods] should be given the same respect and opportu- and oblivious receptor of dominant consumerist ideals. nities as anyone else. Beautiful Girl, Handsome Boy Speaking to the automatic assumption of bad character, Mod L11 writes, “Having visible modifications does not As noted, the negative comments and reactions of others do make me a worse student, human being, etc. I can’t wait for little to stop a Mod from modifying. Mods will engage in a the day when I stop being judged based solely on my appear- variety of strategies, including covering, passing, informa- ance,” and Mod A62 shares, “I don’t have a motorcycle or tion control, and impression management (Goffman, 1963) breed snakes in my parents’ basement or do drugs. Body to avoid and/or neutralize normals’ gestural and verbal con- modification is not about bikers and rappers. It’s a very per- demnation of their body practices, practices that actively sonal choice.” Addressing the manufactured connection violate the American beauty ideal of what male and female between health and beauty, Mod E75 writes, bodies should (want to) look like. However, nowhere is the disapproval Mods experience more egregious than in the I do think we should try to be healthier, but not aspire family milieu. to a prototype of beauty, but one that makes US feel In answering the question concerning how family and beautiful and confident. Me and my body mods make friends react to their body modifications, many Mods noted me feel enough confidence to feel extremely attrac- the negative responses of their parents and relatives, while tive, and in my experience that makes me attractive. stating that their friends are more accepting of their body practices. Mod S08 writes, “My family has never understood Mainstream society defines as abhorrent such modifica- the reasoning behind my modifications and have been unsup- tions as facial or genital piercings, scarring, cutting, branding, portive of my decisions,” and Mod T48 writes, “My parents 8 SAGE Open have not been so accepting of my modifications. My mom Mod M20 addresses the increasing pressure young men even said to me once, ‘How many holes are enough?!’” Mod are experiencing as the target of media images that create S42 shares, “I’ve not told my family about [my tattoos] to and reproduce the ideal masculine body: “Men should be avoid confrontation. I’d rather my short visits home are straight-laced muscle bound healthy clean cut and profes- happy rather than end up with me being shouted at.” sional and girls should all look like models, if not you suck Differential socialization of boys and girls is a given. and you’re not accepted.” Taking this notion a step further, Examples of body control tactics abound in literature and Mod K22 writes, popular media, reinforcing not only strict gender roles but also the expectation of conformance to a cultural ideal, [We are] fed the thought that you should be a provoca- whether that ideal be aesthetic (beauty), material (status), tive, skinny, smart but ditsy, pink plaid wearing col- cognitive (beliefs), or expressive, as in the case of socially lege graduate that drives a BMW or a clean cut acceptable demonstrations of masculine and feminine behav- businessman. There is a fine line between what is okay ior. While my questionnaire did not include the parents and what isn’t. of Mods as potential respondents, parents—as socially and historically situated members of dominant culture—appear Mod H23 notes how controlling images concerning ideal to share the attitudes of mainstream normals when it comes bodies can be internalized and thus affect a person’s to unconventional bodily alterations. In particular, the com- self-concept: ments female Mods relayed concerning their parents’ reac- tions indicate an anxiety on the part of mothers and fathers Male and female bodies seem to be set in a narrow that seems to stem from a fear that their daughter will, through view of what is beautiful and what is not. Females her alternative body practices, alienate a potential life partner. must be thin, decently breasted, and have a pretty Mod S49 illustrates this point: “My dad always got angry at face. Males have a broader range on how they may me and told me I’d never meet a good guy that did anything look to be acceptable. Plastic and cosmetic surgery is useful because of my stretched lobes and my tattoos,” and becoming widely acceptable but it’s shoving people Mod C17 writes, “[The main question is] ‘Don’t you have through a narrow viewfinder on what they think of a hard time dating looking like that?’” Mod A64 writes, themselves. “My mother does not know I have [mods]. She would go nuts.” Mod M02 shares a deep frustration when it comes to Confronting the conformist mentality expected by nor- communicating any aspect of her modifications to her family: mals, Mod K30 writes, “There is too much pressure on men “I try to make [my family] understand what it means to me. and women to keep their bodies looking a certain way in our No matter how much they love me, they will not understand. society. Tall, thin, muscular, blonde, tanned . . . all of these They’ve drawn a line and I’ve crossed it.” make people look like sheep.” As in most aspects of social life, embodied experience One particular comment, by Mod S50, stood out because can be understood in terms of gendered experience. it is a profound observation concerning attitudes toward gen- Nonmainstream body modification—as an embodied, dered appearance: agented endeavor—is no different. As the above statements suggest, how bodies are perceived and treated by conven- Western society is still very male oriented; maybe tional society depends greatly on how that body looks and being part of the group that largely has power confers behaves in accordance with social norms, including accept- partial immunity towards body objectification? able expressions of masculinity and femininity. Survey Women seem to end up more concerned with whether respondents had much to say when answering the question they have the “right” appearance than men do. I catch concerning how male and female bodies are perceived by female students complaining about breast size regu- society, with many of them again pointing to the American larly (too small, too big), but I have yet to find any beauty ideal and (controlling) media images as sources of group of male students complaining about muscle discontent regarding acceptable bodies. Exemplifying the mass, body fat composition, height issues, penis size. power and cultural scope of these controlling images in con- temporary society, Mod E75, a male Mexican national, This comment by Mod S50, who identifies himself as a writes, heterosexual male, warrants special attention because it implies the differential judgments male and female Mods Most people are surprised that someone “like me” experience. Some body practices are more acceptable for (professional, business owner, commercial director, men than they are for women, and vice versa. For example, come from a good family) has body modifications. We being a heavily tattooed and/or pierced woman elicits more make way too much preconceptions and the media comments from normals about sexual promiscuity, attrac- tries to sell us this image of rockers or actors that we tiveness, childbearing, and marriage than it does for male should pursue. Mods, who are often grouped under the “criminal” label. Thomas 9 Mod T82 elaborates this point: “Women with piercings are the body were systematically studied, exploited, exhibited, still looked upon as wild women who are too overtly sexual. and feared (Bogdan, 1988; Cook, 1996; Terry & Urla, Men with modifications are often grouped with White trash 1995). Grotesques of days past were, alternately, targets of or gangsters or other degenerates of society,” and Mod M79 derision and objects of reverence. writes, “Females are definitely looked down upon when they Researcher Robert Bogdan (1988) explains the origins are modified. Men can be a little dirty with a few tattoos, but of two types of freak, each of them historically, geographi- girls are seen as downright skanky gang-related bitches.” cally, physically, and metaphorically dislodged from their Mod S42 shares, own social milieus and then systematically relocated and resituated within a Western context as other. The first type Some people have even had the reaction “you’d be so of freak—the “exotic freak”—is directly connected to the much prettier without all that” when talking about my exploration of the non-Western world in the 18th and 19th modifications and yet made no comment about my centuries. As explorers and natural scientists struck out boyfriend’s tattoos and piercings, which also gives me over the oceans and tributaries to investigate new worlds, the impression it’s okay for males to heavily modify they returned with not only countless—albeit exagger- themselves and yet women should only have their ears ated—stories of bizarre people and unusual cultures but pierced also actual specimens of these cultures, sparking intense curiosity in the American public that provided an opportu- These comments support tattoo and body-play artist nity for the showmen of the age to capitalize on the differ- Sheree Rose’s assertion that “tattoo is one of those big taboos entness of these specimens. for women, although it’s always been something that men could do when they get drunk” (Vale & Juno, 1989, p. 109). Tribal people, brought to the United States with all the In sum, by consciously moving away from conventional accoutrements of their culture out of context, stimu- ideas surrounding ideal (i.e., gendered) bodily appearance lated the popular imagination and kindled belief in and behavior and toward the perceived opposite, Mods races of tailed people, dwarfs, giants, and even people directly confront the social constructs and institutions that with double heads that paralleled creatures of ancient demand a very narrow definition of attractiveness and gen- mythology. The interest thus spawned was an opportu- dered behavior. Mods do this by reappropriating, overtly and nity, a platform, and a backdrop for showmen’s cre- covertly, the controlling images Western society produces, ations. (Bogdan, 1988, p. 6) reproduces, promotes, and expects—the positively sanc- tioned images of smooth, pristine, unblemished, youthful The second category of freak consists of those individuals bodies that operate at a high functionality (defined as beauti- who met all the criteria to be labeled under the medical term ful) and the demonized images of criminal, insane, defect, for people with obvious and, oftentimes, extreme bodily dif- and monstrous (defined as ugly). ference—the monster, the lusus naturae, the “freak of nature.” These were people born with a physical anomaly so severe that they were touted as “born freaks” (Bogdan, 1988), indi- Freak viduals who not only piqued the interest of the medical com- When asked how individuals with nonmainstream body munity but also aroused the curiosity of normals. Born freaks modifications are perceived by mainstream Western soci- elicited reactions of pity and stunned horror, and showmen of ety, and what the general public’s reaction to their specific the age played on audience members’ fears of bodily inva- body modifications is, an overwhelming majority of Mods sion, dysfunction, and disfigurement to entice them inside the made reference to the term freak and how having nonnor- mysterious tent in which the freak was housed. A widely mative physical characteristics can result in this disparag- known example of a born freak who was put on display and ing, dehumanizing label. This is nothing new. Ascribing marketed for the sole benefit of curiosity seekers is Joseph the freak term to individuals who exhibit “monstrous” or Carrey Merrick, the “elephant man.” “abnormal” physical traits has deep roots in antiquated Rachel Adams (1996) suggests the social construction of ideologies concerning race, experimentation in the name of a third type of freak, the “normal freak,” a person of normal medical science, and strict binary categorizations of gender bodily constitution who emphasizes his or her difference (Bogdan, 1988; Cook, 1996; Terry & Urla, 1995). Some from the average person by appropriating a special skill or general characteristics that could earn someone a freak by becoming a “made freak,” someone who does something label included possessing too many or too few body parts, to himself or herself to become unusual enough in appear- having a distorted or “monstrous” form, being much larger/ ance or ability to warrant exhibition. This freak can be found smaller/thinner/fatter/hairier than the average person, pos- in the strongman, the snake charmer, the sword swallower, sessing hair or skin of an anormative color with regard to and the heavily tattooed man or woman. For obvious rea- sex/race/age, or having two or contradictive genders. sons, the concept of the made freak is especially relevant in Historically, individuals with some type of abomination of discussions of nonmainstream body modification. 10 SAGE Open While no less than 43 comments appeared in the ques- other-relatedness and an associated self-relatedness are the tionnaires regarding the freak attribution to those who pos- main characteristics of the communicative body in non- sess a nonnormative physical appearance, the following mainstream body modification. These bodyminds confront statement from Mod H31 profoundly sums up the thoughts contingencies and the action problem of predictability in of the majority of survey respondents. their everyday encounters with normals. However, made freaks tend to be individuals who enjoy the narrative pro- Mainstream Western people automatically assume that cess, engaging normals in a dyadic exchange, thus helping if you have an “extreme” mod there’s something the normal perceive the Mod as just one more human who wrong with you. That you’re a criminal, a freak, the has a story to share; they simply share it through unconven- dregs of the dregs. Right up there with fags, drag tional means. In true communicative body form, Mod J34 spics, niggers, or any other minority that is full of eloquently clarifies this concept: “No matter our color or people that the “mainstream” don’t want to understand religion or wealth or sexuality or body appearance . . . we or know, because hating someone for something silly have a story to tell. Everyone else should be willing to lis- gives them something to feel better about. They can ten,” and Mod S08 shares, “I believe that human expression get up in the morning, look in the mirror, and say “gee is one of the most beautiful and responsible things for a per- at least I’m not fat/gay/Black/have horns implanted in son to do.” my forehead.” As the statements of these made freaks illustrate, in using their bodies to personify identity through the inscriptive Many Mods undertake body projects as a means of expression of the internal landscape, a declaration of body outwardly projecting an internal self-image by inscribing ownership becomes evident. In sharing its narrative, the their bodies with symbolic signifiers that indicate how they communicative bodymind in nonmainstream body modifica- perceive themselves and how they wish to be perceived by tion actively dictates how its physicality is to be understood others. Some Mods feel that their “normal” exterior presen- and evaluated rather than allowing society to ascribe mean- tation does not match their internal perception of how they ing to it. Furthermore, knowing the automatic assumptions “should” look. Several go so far as to say they view their of normals, many made freaks allow themselves to be viewed bodies as anomalous or incomplete without body modifica- initially within a context of deviance (monstrous, criminal, tions, at times using language that implies aesthetic defect or insane) but then challenge those same assumptions through impaired function. As a made freak, Mod A64 elaborates the innovative bodily expression and dyadic social exchange. It related concepts of self-expression and identity this way: is during this transactive exchange that the expressive, com- municative bodymind turns the expected encounter inside Body modification enables me to express the person out, forcing the normal to not only look at, but also really that I truly am. I feel it is a form of art and flesh is my see, dominant culture’s contradictions and dualities. Mod medium. I wouldn’t say that body modification makes L41 illustrates this interactive strategy: me who I am, but if for some reason I take out my jewelry . . . I feel uncomfortable, I feel naked and I When my face was more full of metal I had a lot of feel as if a crucial part of me is missing. people stare at me and little kids nearby would try and touch them. If I get a glare, I can be rude. If they Mod J19 writes, “I will always be changing different parts are curious (you can obviously tell the difference) I of [my body] to complete it or to make it look more like who usually say hi to let them know it is obvious they are I am on the inside and express my values, scene, culture, staring at me and any questions they have I would be opinions, etc.” Mod K22 expands on this point: “[I modify] happy to answer. to be myself the way I see myself. I like feeling free. Expressing myself this way and telling stories on my skin is Deeply rooted in history, the term freak certainly has a my way of growing,” and Mod H23 writes, “It’s purely controlling aspect to it. The term is employed by normals to become an expansion on a personal outlook of myself . . . it’s communicate to Mods that their bodyminds lie far outside an exciting experience and makes me someone of my own the accepted appearance and behavioral norms of Western making.” Mod J34 notes simply, “[body modification] allows society, and that there are consequences for these transgres- me to feel as if I’m bringing what’s inside me out.” sions, such as being stigmatized as less-than-human and/or Several interesting observations are made when analyz- ostracism in the form of social isolation. Mod J15 shares, “I ing the made freak within the framework of Frank’s com- see ‘normal’ people’s reactions and feel alone, ugly and like municative style of body usage. The primary mode of action a freak,” and Mod J12 notes, “It’s like the days of the old undertaken by the communicative body in social interaction circus sideshow.” is recognition. Self-expression (in this case narrative shar- As these comments illustrate, controlling images affect ing in the form of visible symbolic inscription) and a desire not only the subordinated individual or group but also domi- that is conscious and producing in its pursuit of dyadic nant culture as the images are disseminated in everyday Thomas 11 media accounts and common discourses. However, as shared experiences can incite a fear response in members of Collins asserts, controlling images can not only be created dominant culture, resulting in pathologization and stigmatiza- and used to dominate a specific group, promoting stereo- tion of the offending individual, effects that could greatly types and limiting the subjugated group’s access to poten- influence that individual’s sense of self and his or her con- tially liberating symbols, but they can also be reappropriated tinuing formation of identity, both group and individual. By by the stigmatized group and turned into powerful symbols showing agency in altering their physical appearance and/or of liberation, resistance, and reclamation. As Mod A62 function, however, Mods, like all people, stake a claim on shares, “It’s very important to me that I have this kind of their own corporeal presentation, declaring ownership of strength/power represented on my body because it is every- their bodies as well as their individual, social, and political thing I want to be in life.” Bringing the ideas of spiritual identity. In doing so, Mods make the tacit claim that dominant identity, ritual, humanness, and body ownership together, Western social institutions do not—will not—dictate their Mod C32 writes, public presentation or definition of self. If Armando Favazza (1996) is correct in his analysis of cross-cultural body modi- I wanted to be happy with the skin I was in, so I made fication practices, and if these practices are indeed the embod- myself what I am. It’s very spiritual to have that ied expression of universal archetypes residing in our power. I also have strong beliefs in the significance of collective consciousness, nonmainstream body modifica- modification throughout human history. I feel that it is tion can be viewed simply as one more manifestation of a a part of what makes us human to modify ourselves. I cross-culturally shared curiosity about the human body and like the feeling of having that connection to the rest of its limits. the world, past and present. It’s very grounding to In sum, by inscribing their bodies with symbols that know that while we may be going off the deep end as communicate entire biographies and ideologies, Mods and a culture, I can still have a small link to the people who their embodied practices lend support to various theories of lived with the land instead of against it. the body while challenging common assumptions about the body. Indeed, it could be argued that Mods are simply undertaking the most profound human endeavor—the Conclusion enduring search for identity and meaning, the embodied This article explores the ways in which contemporary non- quest for connection and recognition. mainstream Mods facilitate daily social interaction as a Declaration of Conflicting Interests stigmatized other. Mods, as social agents, act on their envi- ronment as well as allow their environment to act on them. The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with As a result, they are highly aware of the unique contingen- respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this cies presented in social encounters due to their anormative article. appearance, demonstrating a deep awareness of how con- Funding ventional society views them—as the mentally unstable nut, the ugly man or woman, the monstrous freak. The author(s) received no financial support for the research and/or Because dominant society messages through controlling authorship of this article. images what men and women should (want to) look like, the Note comments of Mods demonstrate that their unconventional body practices directly challenge society’s expectations of 1. To challenge Descartes’s assertion that the body and the mind beauty and health norms, gender expression and roles, cor- are distinctly separate aspects of self, I use the term bodymind poreal presentation, and symbolic inscription simply by to illustrate the obvious connections between the two. moving away from Western appearance ideals (beauty) and References toward its perceived opposite (monstrosity). By blatantly opening, puncturing, excising, scarring, stretching, burning, Adams, R. (1996). An American Tail: Freaks, gender, and the incor- nullifying, implanting, and tattooing various body parts, poration of history in Katherine Dunn’s Geek Love. In R. G. Mods defy accepted notions of skin as something pristine, Thomson (Ed.), Freakery: Cultural spectacles of the extraor- pain as something to be avoided, body integrity as something dinary body (pp. 277-290). New York: New York University to be preserved, and self as a fixed and rigid concept. As the Press. testimonials of Mods show, their nonconformance to these Bensler, J., & Paauw, D. (2003). Apotemnophilia masquerading as normative notions has earned them the label of deviant—the medical morbidity. Retrieved from http://www.medscape.com/ dangerous and discreditable outsider, the freak that escapes viewarticle/459183 definition and categorization, the perplexing oddity that Bogdan, R. (1988). Freak show: Presenting human oddities for challenges what it means in Western society to be a man or a amusement and profit. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago woman, indeed what it means to be human. Press. Furthermore, as the self-statements of Mods show, images Camphausen, R. C. (1997). Return of the tribal: A celebration of that are perceived as lying outside the realm of commonly body adornment. Rochester, NY: Park Street Press. 12 SAGE Open Collins, P. H. (2000). Black feminist thought: Knowledge, con- Musafar, F. (2002). Spirit flesh. Santa Fe, NM: Arena Editions. sciousness, and the politics of empowerment. New York, NY: Myers, J. (1992). Nonmainstream body modification: Genital Routledge. piercing, branding, burning, and cutting. Journal of Contempo- Cook, J. W. (1996). Of men, missing links, and nondescripts: rary Ethnography, 2, 267-306. The strange career of P.T. Barnum’s “What is it?” exhibition. O’Neill, J. (1985). Five bodies: The human shape of modern In R. G. Thomson (Ed.), Freakery: Cultural spectacles of the society. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. extraordinary body (pp. 139-157). New York: New York Uni- Orlan (2005). I Do Not Want to Look Like . . . In M. Fraser & versity Press. M. Greco (Eds.), The body: A reader (pp. 312-315). New York, Dryer, D. C. (2007). Characterizing intentional ordeals. Available NY: Routledge. from www.networkedblogs.com Pitts, V. (2000). Visibly queer: Body technologies and sexual poli- Edelman, D. (2000). The thin red line: Social power and the open tics. Sociological Quarterly, 41, 443-463. Pitts, V. (2003). In the flesh: The cultural politics of body modifica- body. Retrieved from http://www.csa.com/discoveryguides/ tion. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan. redline/overview.php Pitts, V. (2006). The body, beauty, and psychosocial power. In N. Favazza, A. R. (1996). Bodies under siege: Self-mutilation and Chen & H. Moglen (Eds.), Bodies in the making: Transgres- body modification in culture and psychiatry. Baltimore, MD: sions and transformations (pp. 28-46). Santa Cruz, CA: New Johns Hopkins University Press. Pacific Press. Featherstone, M. (1982). The body in consumer culture. In M. Rosenblatt, D. (1997). The antisocial skin: Structure, resistance, Featherstone, M. Hepworth, & B. Turner (Eds.), The body: and “Modern Primitive” adornment in the United States. Cul- Social process and cultural theory (pp. 170-196). London, Eng- tural Anthropology, 12, 287-334. land: SAGE. Rush, J. A. (2005). Spiritual tattoo: A cultural history of tattooing, M. Featherstone, (Ed.). (2000). Body modification. London, Eng- piercing, scarification, branding, and implants. Berkeley, CA: land: SAGE. Frog. Frank, A. W. (1991). For a sociology of the body: An analytical Shilling, C. (2003). The body and social theory. London, England: review. In M. Featherstone, M. Hepworth, & B. Turner (Eds.), SAGE. The body: Social process and cultural theory (pp. 36-102). Sweetman, P. (1999). Anchoring the (postmodern) self? Body mod- London, England: SAGE. ification, fashion and identity. In M. Featherstone (Ed.), Body Gay, K., & Whittington, C. (2002). Body marks: Tattooing, pierc- and society: Body modification (pp. 51-76). Thousand Oaks, ing, and scarification. Brookfield, CT: Millbrook Press. CA: SAGE. Gimlin, D. L. (2002). Body work: Beauty and self-image in Ameri- Synnott, A. (1993). The body social: Symbolism, self, and society. can culture. Berkeley: University of California Press. New York, NY: Routledge. Goffman, E. (1963). Stigma: Notes on the management of spoiled Terry, J., & Urla, J. Urla (Eds.). (1995). Deviant bodies. Blooming- identity. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster. ton: Indiana University Press. Grosz, E. (1994). Volatile bodies: Toward a corporeal feminism. Thesander, M. (1997). The feminine ideal. London, England: Reak- Bloomington: Indiana University Press. tion Books. Larratt, S. (2003). ModCon: The secret world of extreme body mod- R. Thomson, R. (Ed.). (1996). Freakery: Cultural spectacles of the ification. Canada: BME Books. extraordinary body. New York: New York University Press. Lemert, E. M. (1951). Social pathology: A systematic approach Turner, B. S. (1984). The body and society. Oxford, UK: Basil to the theory of sociopathic behavior. New York, NY: McGraw- Blackwell. Hill. Vale, V., & Juno, A. (1989). Re/Search #12: Modern Primitives. Mercury, M. (2000). Pagan fleshworks: The alchemy of body modi- Eugene, OR: Re/Search Publications. fication. Rochester, VT: Park Street Press. Mills, R. (2005). Suspended animation: Pain, pleasure and punish- Bio ment in medieval culture. London, England: Reaktion Books. Musafar, F. (1996). Body play: State of grace or sickness? In A. Morgen L. Thomas earned her master’s degree from the University Favazza (Ed.), Bodies under siege: Self-mutilation and body of Colorado. She is a writer, mother, student, and adjunct instructor modification in culture and psychiatry (pp. 325-334). Balti- of sociology. She is currently researching body reclamation rituals more, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press. specific to men.

Journal

SAGE Open – SAGE

Published: Nov 22, 2012

Keywords: body modification; deviance; stigma; identity; health; illness; beauty ideals

There are no references for this article.