Self Presentation and Identification

Piercing is a profoundly personal experience. It changes not only the way in which others perceive a person but also the way that person perceives himself or herself. This change in both ones own self identification and other peoples perception of a person is, for many, an integral part of the decision to become pierced.

Ones appearance has been linked, often through dress, to an affiliation with a particular cultural, or sub- cultural group (Polhemus 1996). The aim, however, is often the renunciation of the accepted norm rather than affiliation with rebellious sub-cultural sections of society. It is particularly difficult to express ones rejection of, or objection to, a culture if the culture in question already has a labelled stereotype to which any aspiring rebel conforms. This system of categorisation and labelling everyone and everything is a defence mechanism to resist cultural change, which is often perceived as damaging.

The wish, in many, to stand apart from contemporary Western society is well documented (Clarke 1994, Myers 1992, Polhemus 1996, Turner 1984). Polhemus raises an interesting issue in connection with bodily 'mutilation' and martyrdom. What, he argues, would have society cared had the martyrs, and most particularly Jesus, not possessed human bodies. By doing to the body that which no-one in a given society would do, one stands against the society.

Many of the people I spoke to stated that they felt that who they are is decided, not by themselves, but by the way they choose to present themselves to society. Society dictates what is correct, it also dictates what is needed and this results in a move towards social conformity. Piercing, then, is seen by many practitioners as an attack on what is seen as forced social conformity (Turner 1984).

The way one presents oneself to society and indeed regards oneself is, however, rarely limited to aspects of social conformity. In the past such issues were of far greater concern, but as can be seen documented in the works of Scott and Morgan (Scott and Morgan 1993) there has been a general shift in attitudes resulting in increased study, and acceptance, of the human body. As such if one is not happy with the image one holds of oneself, or that which one believes' others hold, there is often far less personal stigma attached to altering one's appearance than there was in the past. It seems that our views on the body, and its importance, are changing and coming more in line with those of people from less industrialised societies. A traditional Western viewpoint, according to Gell, holds that the skin is on the outside, and the outside is less true an interpretation of what is on the inside. The skin, therefore, cannot reflect the true nature of a person. This is an interesting point of view because the impression given by Western media and fashion industries is that the way one looks is of the utmost importance. This is, I feel, a discrepancy between the west's theoretical point of view and that which it practices. Whilst it is indeed true that ones appearance will often dictate peoples initial impressions of an individual or group it may be argued that what is on the inside is reflected on the outside, but to a lesser degree. As such if body modifications were still viewed as Lombroso viewed them they would merely indicate far greater internal turmoil.

A non-Western view of the body as proposed by Turner and Strathern (Gell 1993)argues that indeed the skin is on the outside, but it is the outside which is public and interacts with others. People are the sum total of their relations with others and as such any person can be effectively regarded as their skin alone. This is a point of view which many in the West partially adopt and which is, in many cases, true. The problems associated with this point of view occur when one section of society is unable to interpret the skin of a different section of society. The way one presents oneself differs depending on which part of a society one is interacting with at any given time.

Identity is important to all members of a given culture. However, for Modern Primitives it is their own sense of identity, rather than how mainstream society views them which is of paramount importance. As such, for the Modern Primitive, the way one perceives oneself, and the way in which one is perceived by the people who one wishes to affiliate with, becomes an issue which must be clearly defined. This is particularly difficult because as members of a group starts to define themselves by culture as opposed to social structure the group boundaries become potentially highly fluid. This is due to the enormous amount of personal variation each member of the group possesses as to whom and what they think they are. In such cases cultural groups can often be seen to define themselves by way of typifying objects. Piercing is highly visual and even when the piercings are not facial they will often be displayed when circumstances permit. Such an obviously distinct marker is regarded as an easy way to show ones cultural identity and opposition towards what can be regarded as the culturally eroding effect of capitalism. Similarly the link between piercing and the modern primitive or neo- tribalist movement exemplifies a wish to dissociate with Western capitalism and associate with the tribal people whose cultures are being destroyed by the West.

All extensively thought out body modifications will have deep underlying motivations which profoundly affect the way in which a person perceives not only their physical body, but also fundamentally who they are. Within a social group which accepts piercing, and this does not mean a group which practices piercing, the motivations and often the meanings of the piercings will be understood and accepted, this in turn reinforces ones own views as to what the piercings signify which in turn acts to confirm others opinions. Because of this self perpetuating cycle there are numerous similarities between the effect piercing has on ones self identification and the ways in which people in related sub-cultural groups regard each other. Most piercees will be aware of people outside the piercing sub-cultures misinterpretation of the signals they wish to convey, often in the form of intolerance, indeed some state that the seemingly in-built intolerance present in contemporary society was a major factor in wishing to be disassociated from it. In some cases this merely increases the motivation and in others it leads to secrecy or alternatively attempts to change peoples opinions.

Self identification is built up through numerous life experiences. As such piercing is used, by many, as a way of celebrating particular 'life crises'. The piercings, as with Sanders tattoos, become part of ones identity kit. Sanders states how tattoos are seen as symbolic of change. In particular she emphasises separation from individuals or groups who control the way one lives ones life such as parents, spouses or employers. She also notes that by gaining a tattoo an individual from any social background becomes able to affiliate with a much larger, diverse group, that of all tattooed people. It is very easy to draw similar parallels when looking at the effects piercing can have on an individual. Indeed the use of piercing as a symbol of change, or more exactly self imposed change, is the single most common reason I have come across for wishing to alter the body in such a fashion.

I have come across numerous explanations of how or why piercing has changed peoples lives, the most common include that after piercing, there is an enormous increase in self confidence. Even if the piercing is not normally visible the knowledge that it is there, and of what had been gone through to get it, made people feel more confident about themselves and therefore their lives.

Similarly, many people profess to a feeling of greater acceptance of their bodies. Today's society puts enormous pressures, especially on women, to conform to an accepted norm of what is beautiful. This occurs to such a degree that our society now suffers from previously uncommon eating disorders, such as bulimia and anorexia. Piercing often creates a feeling of being more 'at home' in ones own body and regarding it as beautiful, whatever public opinion may be.

Finally, I was given an explanation for piercing by a friend who works with homosexual men who were abused when they were young. He stated that piercing allowed such people to come to terms with their emotional pain by re- experiencing physical pain in an environment which they controlled and in such a way reclaim their bodies. Raelyn Gallina, a well known figure in the San Francisco body art scene, stated a similar observation whilst at a workshop attended by Myers. "Piercing is really a rite of passage. Maybe a woman is an incest victim and wants to reclaim her body" (Myers 1992).