> Speaking of which, in my interview with James Howard Kunstler the other
>> day - posted to my radio archive on Friday, and which I'm about to announce
>> with the usual announcement - he denouced the practice of tattooing as
>> evidence of civilizational sickness. Sometimes it's a fine line between a
>> critic and a crank.
>>
>> Doug
>>
>
> I recall some program where Saul Bellow and Martin Amis traded reactionary
> takes on self-design, with Amis saying it was spray painting graffiti on
> oneself.
>
> Dennis
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>
Not that I have a problem with tatooing or anything - I have one myself. But there is a case to be made for it being a manifestation of social regression. It is after all a very primitive manner in which to establish meaning. In societies where, how should I put it, the external enviroment comes across as harsh or threatening due to it not being correctly understood there's often (always?) recourse to some sort of attempt to very violently establish this meaning. In societies which are well integrated these practices appear to dissappear due to their being completely unneccesary. Because the external enviroment is properly understood, the territory marked, shall we say, meaning sort of just flows. However, even when civilisation reaches a certain level you can observe, during periods of major social crises, manifestations of these practices. One of my favourites was the "flagellants" who wandered around in groups throughout Europe during the bubonic plague.
As I said though, interesting as all this may be I don't think its a reason to condemn anything or to moralise on practices such as tatooing... its a bit like when music snobs say that punk music is shit just because its raw, it sounds bad and no-one can play their instruments properly. That's exactly what makes it so good!