Rhetorical Empowerment: Tattoos & Body Piercings asVisual Rhetoric of Resistance

“Censor the body, and you censor breath and speech at the same time. Write yourself. Your body must be heard” (Cixous). Feminist writer Helene Cixous’ powerful rhetorical resistance revisits the invention canon of rhetoric as a source of empowerment, particularly to those oppressed due to sex, race, and/or socio-economic factors. Her fellow writer and discourse analyst Michel Foucault believes that no matter how oppressive and controlling an institution or system, there will always be room and opportunity for resistance. His concern for the health of the social body focuses on the placement of power throughout even the smallest level of social relations, as he invites people to resist in order to change the status quo. And feminist theorist Julia Kristeva accounts for women’s oppression in patriarchal societies by claiming women’s role is reduced to merely maternal function; she resists the common feminist theory of rejecting motherhood and insists that “real female innovation in whatever field will only come about when maternity, female, creation, and the link between them are better understood” (Oliver).

These renowned rhetoricians use the concepts of power, influence, and semiotics to resist the status quo on many fronts, and their rhetoric of resistance serves to empower. These rhetoricians’ ideals are reincarnated in social movements and art forms, specifically tattoos and body piercings. These art forms and the work of these rhetoricians transcend the trendiness of angst and rebellion, are rich in history and tradition, establish self-identity and demonstrate the internal and external struggle to maintain it, and exercise the canons of invention, arrangement, style, memory and delivery. Most importantly, all are rooted in the intrinsic value of resisting the status quo. Be it resisting a limited definition of beauty, a narrow interpretation of art, a cookie-cutter existence in mainstream society, or an exclusion from an “in-crowd,” tattoos and body piercings are the reincarnation of Cixous’, Foucault’s and Kristeva’s values and are today’s rhetoric of resistance.


Rhetoricians & Resistance

Cixous successfully uses her rhetoric to resist women’s oppression and the idea that it is acceptable to continue the historical exclusion of women from rhetoric, among other fields. In her renowned essay “The Laugh of the Medusa,” not only does she implore women to write with no regard for the “smug-faced readers, managing editors and big bosses [who] don’t like the true texts of women—female-sexed texts,” but she also advocates for writing to be considered a duty by women; she proclaims that “it is by writing, from and toward women, and by taking up the challenge of speech which has been governed by the phallus, that women will confirm women in a place other than that which is reserved in and by the symbolic, that is a place other than silence” (Cixous).

The feminine writing practice of “writing the body,” according to Cixous, is a “new insurgent writing” bringing women liberation; it gives women back the bodies “which [have] been more than confiscated,” and it will serve as a catalyst to women “seizing the opportunity to speak, hence shattering entry into history, which has always been based on suppression” (Cixous). Cixous’ desire to empower women to resist stems from her sincere belief that writing sparks transformation and discourse, and throughout history women have not had adequate opportunities to be heard and spark transformation we desire to see. She also implies that writing and sexuality are inseparably intertwined and that to write from the body will purge women from society’s stifling hierarchal structure and make us initiators of change rather than disciples of the status quo. She writes that through “this job of analysis and illumination,” women will remove ourselves from the “place reserved for the guilty (guilty of everything, guilty at every turn: for having desires, for not having any; for being too frigid, for being ‘too hot’; for not being both at once;…for having children and for not having any…)” (Cixous).

Though her verbiage of resistance seems to be such a clear message of liberation and equality, her theories on the sexual opposition and its historical power struggle prompt much debate even in her own rhetorical subculture. Feminists have condemned Cixous for her insistence on reclaiming the maternal function and for being an essentialist; in her book Helene Cixous: A Politics of Writing, Morag Shiach writes that Cixous’ critics say she "reduces women to an essence ... and thus negates the possibility of the very change which she seeks to promote" (Shiach).
Much like Cixous, Foucault’s rhetoric of resistance exists vividly in the theories on power and the oppressed. His desire to stand “outside of the culture to which we belong, to analyze its formal conditions in order to make a critique of it, not in the sense of reducing its value, but in order to see how it was actually constituted” is how he defines his form of research and philosophy. His theories of power are in stark contrast to “more traditional liberal and Marxist theories of power”; Foucault has alluded to his work in social criticism being rooted in Kant and has admitted being especially influenced by ideas on the evolution of morality espoused by Nietzsche (Allen).

In his biography Face to Face written by Roger Pol-Driot, Foucault discusses his views on how the oppressed are perceived, among other concepts; he says “If you are not like everybody else, then you are abnormal. If you are abnormal, then you are sick. These three categories—not being like everybody else, not being normal, and being sick—are in fact very different, but have been reduced to the same thing” (Pol-Droit). But because he views power as an ever-changing struggle and he acknowledges power’s existence not only in institutions but also throughout the social body, Foucault believes power can be productive through its link to knowledge. He claims that though he seeks knowledge and contemplates truth, he is not a theorist, or “someone who constructs a general system either deductive or analytical and applies it to different fields in a uniform way,” but that instead he experiments “to write in order to change myself and in order not to think the same thing as before” (Foucault). Foucault seems to attach the duty of prompting change (read: resisting) to acquiring knowledge and writing the truth we find, and through his exhaustive analysis and criticism of the power struggles within economic, social, philosophical, medical, ethical, and political institutions he most certainly fulfilled his duty.

Such value on rhetoric and resistance can also be found in the concepts and writing of Kristeva whose resistance to the defining characteristics of feminism led to her argument for three phases of feminism in her essay “Women’s Time.” The first phase, which Kristeva explicitly disagrees with, “seeks universal equality and overlooks sexual differences”; in this phase, she does not reject motherhood per se, but instead contends that we need a different discourse for it outside of religion and science (Oliver). The second phase, which she also disagrees with, “seeks a uniquely feminine language, which she thinks is an impossible”; in this phase, Kristeva writes that “women seek to give a language to the intrasubjective and corporeal experiences left mute by culture in the past” (Oliver). She claims that language and culture are not merely patriarchal functions, but that “they are the domain of speaking beings and women are primarily speaking beings” (Oliver). The third phase, which Kristeva agrees with, redefines identity and sexual difference; though she claims there is “radicalness [in] the process” of accepting multiple identities,
she says that the process could be “summarized as an…introduction of its cutting edge into the very interior of every identity whether subjective, sexual, ideological, and so forth” (Kristeva).

Kristeva has focused her attention on the concept of the body when discussing her feminist concepts, specifically emphasizing the maternal function and how cultures reduce it to mothers or women. Her analysis of the connection between women, maternity and femininity and how they have been reduced just as the maternal function has shows that “misplaced abjection is one way to account for women's oppression and degradation within patriarchal cultures” (Oliver).

The concepts of power, confrontation, stereotypes, individual freedom, and self-identity intertwine throughout these rhetoricians’ staunch writings on the value of working actively for change; such exercises in resistance against status quos are exercises in empowerment. The same concepts intertwine throughout the meanings behind tattoos and body piercings; such forms of rhetorical expression and exercises in resistance against status quos are also exercises in empowerment. If the rhetorical value of Cixous, Foucault, and Kristeva was ever misunderstood, one need only look at their applications of rhetoric’s five canons to issues of societal ills and the appeal in their written words to stimulate change. If the need to resist was ever considered dated or no longer necessary, one need only look to the movement of tattoos and body piercings, as the goals and power of the arts are inextricably linked to the goals and power of resistance.


What is Rhetoric?

To accept tattoos and body piercings as rhetoric of resistance, we must first define rhetoric. In his acclaimed article “The Myth of the Rhetorical Situation,” rhetorical scholar Professor Richard E. Vatz defines rhetoric as “the art of linguistically or symbolically creating salience” (Vatz). He notes that “after salience is created, the situation must be translated into meaning” (Vatz). In that, he credits rhetoricians for creating meaning as opposed to meaning being discovered in rhetorical situations; he says that translating information into meaning is “an act of creativity. It is an interpretative act. It is a rhetorical act of transcendence” (Vatz). Since I believe my tattoos and body piercings are pieces of rhetoric, then according to Vatz I must recognize my moral responsibility in the “creation of reality or salience rather than a reflector of reality”; I must also acknowledge that rhetoric will only be truly respected “when the meaning is seen as the result of a creative act and not a discovery” (Vatz).

Communication scholar and argumentation theorist Douglas Ehninger contends that rhetoric is the discipline in which we study how we “influence each other's thinking and behavior through the strategic use of symbols” (American Rhetoric). That perspective would seem to include verbal and nonverbal discourse, as Ehninger notes contemporary rhetorical theories “entertain the still broader purpose of exploring the social significance of the communicative act in all of its forms and uses” (Ehninger). Again, since I believe my tattoos and body piercings are pieces of rhetoric, then according to Ehninger I must accept that rhetoric is “designed to do rather than to merely be”; I must also accept that “there are many different rhetorics, each growing out of a particular set of social and cultural needs and designed to meet a contemporary purpose” (Ehninger).

Rhetorician Jacques Derrida advises that rhetoric is an art that should be taught through pragmatics; he notes that “the effects of rhetoric don't depend only on the way you utter words, the way you use tropes, the way you compose” (Olsen). He also advises that, as rhetoricians, we must strive to deconstruct rhetoric and rigid modes of composition and “invent each time new forms according to the situation” (Olsen). Once again, since I believe my tattoos and body piercings are pieces of rhetoric, then according to Derrida I must consider that rhetoric is contingent upon “the situation, the audience, your own purpose” (Olsen). Certainly those apply to all forms of rhetoric, including tattoos and body piercings; it’s almost as if the arts are their own genres.

Tattoos and body piercings are a combination of the definitions and concepts above: they are symbols of salience strategically placed on bodies to express, persuade, and/or reveal the most effective message possible, and they depend on the intertextuality of rhetorical situations, familial narratives, significant memories and our need to express and identify ourselves.


The Rhetoric of Tattoos

Tattoos are an extension of one’s personality, beliefs, and identity; by that they are permanent pieces of rhetoric through the invention, arrangement, style, memory, and delivery it took to create the art. Though merely gazing upon these pieces of rhetoric cannot grant one a complete understanding of the tattooed, it provides a peek into her values, style, and emotions. From a well-hidden butterfly tattooed on her shoulder to a large piece of custom work across her back, tattoos are pieces of visual rhetoric, or semiotics, that comprise her grammar of fashion and self-expression.

John Long, renowned tattoo artist and owner of John Long Tattoo in Shanghai, believes that rhetorical value exists in tattoos because of people’s need to understand ourselves. He says:

Human beings also wish for a bridge linking spirit and flesh, and tattoo is just the best way they can find to express themselves. In my view, the wealthier the materials human beings enjoy in this increasingly developed and prosperous world, the poorer and hollower they may feel spiritually. Therefore in my opinion, more and more people take to tattoo and hope to compensate somehow for their hollowness and vacancy through this way. They try to express their inner worlds, to give vent to their desires, and to find balance between spirit and flesh. To a large degree I think that this accounts for the inevitable trend towards the popularity of tattoo. (McCabe)

In his words, the five canons of rhetoric are obviously present, specifically the canon of invention through his metaphor of a “bridge linking spirit and flesh” (McCabe). Long believes in the need for both tattoo artists and those who get tattoos to retain ownership of their own ideas and style in the art of tattooing and not merely follow trends (McCabe). If we must write ourselves as Cixous believes, then we must listen to ourselves, value our own ideals, and not rely on other influences to construct our identity.

Take for instance the pink sprinkled cupcake I have tattooed on my left hip. Anyone can look at it and infer that cupcakes say something about who I am. Some may assume I merely chose the design off of a tattoo studio’s wall of art; others may assume it’s a symbol of sweetness and innocence. Inevitably, when it is visible someone has the interest to ask about its meaning, and I share my story of my favorite childhood T-shirt and blue jeans that had a pink sprinkled cupcake embroidered on them. Looking at that tattoo takes me back to 1982 when my father pretended to let me help mow the yard and my mother was alive and in good health. No one can understand the beauty of that time for me, the sense of nostalgia I feel when I think of my father lifting me up to reach the heavy push mower’s handle, or the grief I feel now that my mother has been gone for 22 years. No one has lived my days, so no one will truly grasp my personal rhetoric.

Chris Thomas, tattoo artist and co-owner of Golden Lotus Tattoo Studio, believes that even if someone chooses a pre-drawn tattoo from his wall of designs, there is a personal rhetorical choice being made. Thousands of designs from tiny red hearts to religious icons such as praying hands to old school icons such as skulls, crossbones, and naked pin-up girls adorn his studio’s walls, and hundreds of clients a month choose one of these designs to be permanently inked onto their bodies. But Thomas says that even though he prefers his clients to come in with ideas for custom work, he realizes “even though they may lack the originality of a custom idea, their choice of design says something about a happy time, a memory, a lost loved one, or a goal they want to remember for the rest of their lives. Even where they put the tattoo says something about how much of their personality they are willing to share with the world” (Thomas).

Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University’s Christina Frederick-Recascino, professor of psychology, finds that peer pressure is by far not the primary motivation for getting a tattoo. In fact, she says that the majority of those who get tattoos are “choosing it as a way to reflect their identity”; she notes that her work indicates a deeper motivation such as that a tattoo "represents inner personality, interests, life goals, life philosophy” (“Tattoos. Pierce. How Come?”). She also notes that while outdated stereotypes of those with tattoos aligned one with a specific culture, now those who get tattoos “really put thought into what they want to put on their body” (“Tattoos. Pierce. How Come?”). Considering the rhetorical choices present in these findings as well as the intertextuality of millions of personal stories behind tattoos all over the world, how can tattoos not be considered personal rhetoric?


The Resistance and Empowerment of Tattoos

The same ideals apply to the concept of tattoos as rhetoric of resistance. My cupcake tattoo, though a symbol of my own personal rhetoric, is a form of resistance as well. The irony of a sweet childhood memory representing my resistance of the cookie-cutter existence my mother and father so wished for me screams at the duality of who I am. I am also acutely aware that even though this is the year 2010 and my home state of Arkansas has made great strides in social progress, it is still very much part of the Bible Belt. I hope my budding collection of 18 tattoos differentiates me from the stereotypical Arkansan portrayed in the media; I’m sure we would all much rather be thought of as distinct individuals as opposed to members of pre-determined groups or ridiculous stereotypes.

Knowing that I’ve been strong enough to make such permanent rhetorical choices, specifically to separate myself from who I am “supposed” to be, empowers me. Also, knowing that I sat still long enough for thousands of tiny needle strokes to puncture my skin to form an image I deem as meaningful and beautiful reminds me that my conviction for my personal rhetoric was strong enough that I withstood the pain and invested the time and money. Thomas says that concept is what pulls people through the experience of being tattooed. He says that “even the toughest of the tough guys come in and wince and jump around at the sight and sound of the gun,” but that their “need to make a personal statement and their ability to live through it gives them an adrenaline rush of independence and strength” (Thomas).

I have a large custom piece consisting of blue angel wings, a gold halo, and my mother’s name that I had tattooed on my lower back on the 20th anniversary of her death. I’ve shed a few tears and screamed a few four-letter words while being tattooed, but this tattoo was the first one to ever make me lose consciousness. My body convulsed and perspired as a reaction to not only the physical pain, but also the emotional toil and significance of the tribute; Thomas, the artist, caught me from hitting the floor of his tattoo studio just as we approached the second hour of the session.

When I regained consciousness, I quickly became so afraid of experiencing that intensity again that I thought I wouldn’t be able to allow him to finish. But I looked at the unfinished image in the mirror and saw a fragmented tribute to my mother; that was unacceptable. I composed myself and asked Thomas to finish as tears welled in my eyes. I told myself that if my mother could bear the physical toil of childbirth to bring me into the world, I could bear another hour of needles puncturing my skin to complete my tribute to her. If that isn’t empowering, I’m not sure what is.


The Rhetoric of Body Piercings

If tattoos are a combination of symbols strategically placed on bodies to express, persuade, and/or reveal the most effective message possible and they depend on the intertextuality of rhetorical situations, familial narratives, significant memories, then body piercings must follow in their footsteps. Outside of the stereotype that piercings typically tag along with tattoos in several lifestyles, both movements hinge on the need for expression.

Body piercings, though once regarded as only a tradition for primitive people, are now much like tattooing; they are considered art and symbols of cultural identity. They have graduated well beyond ear piercing, the ever-so-trendy navel piercing of the 1990s, and even the gothic fashion they were once so widely associated with. Pamela Cantor, a psychology instructor at The Cambridge Hospital and Harvard Medical School, says that piercings are looked at upon as more of a social event now; people who get pierced today do it like “the way people in an earlier generation would go to a sleepover and polish nails” (“Tattoos. Pierce. How Come?”).

Jennifer Hathcoat, body piercer and co-owner of Golden Lotus Tattoo Studios, considers body piercings to be a rhetorical choice; she says it is an “accent that adds beauty to someone’s body and tells something about who they are” (Hathcoat). But she also considers it to be a work of art for both the piercer and the pierced in that it is “a lifestyle…it’s more than just a simple stick with a needle. It involves placement of accent to flow with the body part being pierced” (Hathcoat). Clearly Hathcoat is denying that piercings are merely a mark of certain lifestyles and is affirming that having them is a lifestyle in and of itself.
Joan Jacobs Brumberg, author of The Body Project: An Intimate History of American Girls, would seem to agree; she contends that “piercings prove, in a public way, that your body is your own,” a reincarnation of Cixous’ belief that your body must be heard (134). And while Brumberg agrees that personal politics are at play with piercings, she also acknowledges them to be “a symbol of sexual liberation” as well (134).


The Resistance and Empowerment of Body Piercings

But how, if like tattoos, are body piercings rhetoric of resistance if they are simultaneously so fashionable? Hathcoat again gestures to difference in lifestyle. She says that “it’s not always easy. I’m sure I’m judged mainly because of my stretched ear piercings, but having them is a part of who I am no matter who relates to them or who doesn’t like them” (Hathcoat). She also notes that there are many trends that differentiate groups of people who are not necessarily found to be universally appealing, but who are widely accepted, such as “certain hairstyles, long black trench coats on a certain looking white male, tie-dyed and hippie style clothes, and oversized baggy jerseys and jeans.” She argues that “it’s just a matter of what the piercing means to you and your motive for getting it” (Hathcoat).

I remember my father coming to see me when I lived in Las Vegas in 1997. He’d heard me on the phone a few days before and said I sounded strange. Of course I didn’t tell him it was because I paid for a needle to be shoved through my tongue and a 12-gauge barbell now resided there. So needless to say when he saw it, he understood why I sounded the way I did and he was not amused. He disapproved of my brother wearing a diamond stud in his ear in the 1980s when that was all the rage; a barbell through my tongue was a completely foreign and ghastly thing to have, especially for his daughter who he so wanted to be pristine like her mother. I was raised with my parent’s wishes for me to have lady-like crossed legs, pageant-perfect hair, and porcelain doll skin. The girly-girl in me liked the idea of such beauty, but the rebel in me always pushed for more room in the definition of beauty. My father came to understand and even encourage that independent side of me while raising me alone after my mother’s death, but the tongue piercing was still a shock. I didn’t do it to hurt or shock him; I did it because the rebel in me always wins, and I firmly believed I could do my part to stretch the definition of beauty and acceptance of differences. That type of resistance is always empowering.


To resist is empowering. Like Foucault believes, there will always be room and reason for resistance. Political, sexual, personal, and social resistance all rely on rhetorical theories and strategies to empower the oppressed and persuade change. The rhetoric of Cixous, Foucault, and Kristeva are forever connected to the rhetoric of tattoos and body piercings; both the rhetoricians and the art forms use exercises in rhetoric to place personal politics at the forefront of their motives, and both empower through resistance. “One must remember that power is not an ensemble of negation, refusal, exclusion. But it produces effectively. It is likely that power produces right down to individuals themselves,” according to Foucault (Foucault). Knowing that reminds me that the powers of rhetoric and of resistance are alive and well in the arts of tattooing and body piercing, and that gives me hope that there will always be someone to challenge status quos.


Works Cited

Allen, Daniel. “Michel Foucault and His Concepts.” Michel-Foucault.com. 2 April 2008. Web. 2 Jan. 2010

American Rhetoric. Scholarly Definitions of Rhetoric. Americanrhetoric.com. 23 April 2008. Web. 2 Jan. 2010

Brumberg, Joan Jacobs. The Body Project: An Intimate History of
American Girls. Vintage Books: New York, 1997.

Cixous, Helene, Keith Cohen and Paula Cohen. “The Laugh of the Medusa.” Signs 1. 4 (1976): 875-893. JSTOR. Web. 15 Jan 2010

Ehninger, Douglas. “The Promise of Rhetoric: A Ten-Year Review.” Rhetoric Society Quarterly 18.2 (1988): 191-200. JSTOR. Web. 2 Jan. 2010

Foucault, Michel. Power. New Press: New York, 2001.

Hathcoat, Jennifer. Personal interview. 22 April 2008.

Kristeva, Julia, Alice Jardine and Harry Blake. “Women’s Time.” Signs 7.1 (1981): 13-35. JSTOR. Web. 15 Jan 2010

McCabe, Mike. “A Conversation with John Long.” Tattoos.com. 2006. Web. 4 Jan. 2010.

Oliver, Kelly. “Kristeva and Feminism.” Center for Digital Discourse and
Culture at Virginia Tech. March 1998. Web. 2 April 2008.

Olsen, Gary A. " Jacques Derrida on Rhetoric and Composition: A Conversation." Journal of Advanced Composition 10.1 (1990) 15-16

Pol-Droit, Roger. Face to Face. Odile Jacob: New York, 2004.
Shiach, Morag. Helene Cixous: A Politics of Writing. Routledge: New York, 1991.

“Tattoo. Pierce. How Come?.” The Body as Canvas. 2004. University of
Wisconsin Board of Regents. Web. 3 April 2008.

Thomas, Chris. Personal interview. 22 April 2008.

Vatz, Richard E. “The Myth of the Rhetorical Situation.” University of Washington, n.d. Web. 2 Jan. 2010.