Jeremy's critique
From CyberOne Wiki
Jeremy Sigall
CyberOne
1/4/08
Critique of Pro-Mod Argument
Matt’s Pro-Mod argument for the acceptance in the workplace of individuals modified by tattoos and/or piercings clearly comes from a place of passion. However, in this case, I think that the argument ultimately is clouded by the passion. This paper will examine Matt’s argument through the lens provided by CyberOne. The analysis is divided into four sections. The first section examines the overall quality of the argument. The second section discusses the argument’s target audience and the extent of the argument’s empathic nature. Finally, the third section considers the medium through which the argument was expressed.
I. QUALITY
The thrust of the Pro-Mod argument is that members of the community should band together in order to subtly and slowly change the public perception of modified individuals as violent, rebellious and unintelligent through a concerted effort to behave responsibly. This, the argument goes, provides positive images of modified individuals in the minds of the unmodified which, over time, can serve to rebut the supposed automatic presumption of rebelliousness and irresponsibility currently associated with tattoos and piercings.
I believe that this approach is fundamentally flawed in its optimism regarding the general ability of people to change their beliefs based on new evidence. (jeremy, ask yourself why you believe this, and why your belief should be convincing to me.) Assuming, as the argument does, that modified individuals are in actuality no less intelligent, competent and trustworthy as unmodified individuals, there must be a non-evidence based reason that unmodified individuals hold negative stereotypes about the modified. To think that simply being even better behaved will slowly change the minds of those holding stereotypes seems naïve. (but how about forming a collective consciousness and compelling narrative)
Further, the argument ignores the existence of what psychologists call the confirmation bias. That is, people have the tendency to search for and interpret new information in a way that confirms their preconceptions and to avoid information and interpretation that contradict their prior beliefs. (thus the role of art.) Thus, it seems likely that those unmodified people who negatively stereotype the modified will simply ignore particularly well behaved modified individuals or simply interpret encountering such good behavior as their having been lucky to come across the few good apples in the bushel. (who among our heroes is tatood)
I think that what really is called for here is an argument that can precipitate a paradigm shift among the unmodified. That is, it is not sufficient to simply present a more positive image of the modified in order to combat long held beliefs; one must alter the lens through which the modified are perceived. I think Matt may be trying to get at something like this idea when he advocates for trying to get tattoos within the purview of free speech protection. Such a victory could certainly go some way in at least changing the way in which tattoos are perceived. However, the fact is that employees of private companies have virtually no right to free speech. Thus, while such a maneuver may raise the consciousness of the unmodified, it also may simply confirm their beliefs insofar as they will agree that tattoos are speech – speech that connotes rebelliousness, incompetence, etc. (why accept the frame when the thrust is to change the frame)
A more effective approach might relate to our society’s ideas regarding what constitutes an illegitimate basis for discrimination. The common denominator of race, sex, disability and other agreed upon illegitimate bases of discrimination is that they are inherent to an individual, by genetics or some other not freely chosen means1. Recasting body modification as, in some way, the fulfillment or manifestation of some innate characteristic might serve to change how people feel about discriminating on the basis of body modification even if they still hold negative stereotypes and, over time, likely would erode such stereotypes.
An example of such a recasting is the way the, over recent years, transsexuals have been recast from freaks to tortured individuals lost in the wrong bodies. Surgery is then seen as liberating such individuals rather than mutilating them. While it may seem strange to assert some sort of genetic or other innate reason for body modification, the realization that such modification has been consistently present across time and cultures suggests that their may be some adaptive reason for the practice. Such an approach may cause society to question the legitimacy of discrimination on the basis of body modification.
II. TARGET AUDIENCE AND EMPATHY
The target of the Pro-Mod argument is clearly persons who have already undergone body modification. The very first paragraph one encounters on the Pro-Mod site belies the fact when it refers to modified individuals without any explanation or consciousness of a need for explanation; it takes for granted the fact that the audience will understand what a modified individual is. In fact, most unmodified people likely would be perplexed upon encountering the term, as I was when I first read the argument. In my opinion, targeting the people that the argument attempts to help interferes with its empathic character, hindering its ability to make an impact.
For instance, in the “Argument” section of the Pro-Mod website, there is an entire paragraph devoted to convincing the modified community to eschew unlicensed, underground tattoo shops in favor of cleaner, more reputable artists. While such a movement is admirable in its own right, it does little to further the goal of acceptance of modified individuals in the workplace insofar as it fails to address the core concerns of those making the rules. If those running businesses believe that the modified are more likely to be rebellious or ill-tempered employees, it likely would hardly matter where or in what manner they were modified. Further, it seems unlikely that an unmodified business owner would even be aware of the difference between licensed and unlicensed shops and even less likely that she would be aware of where a given individual was modified (short of a tattoo that reads “This tattoo was designed by a licensed tattoo professional”).
Similarly, the Pro-Mod suggestions relating to the military ban on tattoos pays lip service to the policy goals behind it but the suggested solution lacks true empathic understanding. The argument suggests that people should inject traditional military tattoos with a personal flair, thereby convincing the military that nonconformity can be a healthy part of the military life. The argument says that, “By infusing yourself into your branch of the Service, you feel like you've somehow become a viable part of something, and not just another cog in the wheel.”
While that statement may be accurate, it seems like a wholly inappropriate approach to take with the military, an institution built on a foundation of conformity, an institution that expends large amounts of resources pounding home into every new recruits head that he is simply a “cog in the wheel.” Whether right or wrong, the military believes that there is no room for individuality in the trenches. In fact, it seems to me that such a subversive strategy likely would set back the movement for acceptance of modified individuals in the military inasmuch as it confirms the fear that such individuals are a subversive element that threatens the goal of conformity within the ranks.
Rather than understanding and co-opting the military perspective, the Pro-Mod argument advocates a strategy that belies its antipathy toward the military perspective. An argument targeted towards those whose attitudes the Pro-Mod argument seeks to change (i.e., the unmodified masses) might have forced Matt to be a little more empathetic in crafting his argument.
III. Medium
Matt chose to express the Pro-Mod argument through a website targeted at modified individuals. Websites are an important rhetorical tool in the information age and Matt uses his site in two key ways: as a repository of information and as an interactive medium where like-minded individuals can gather and discuss issues (i.e., the forum feature). Consequently, the website serves as a valuable piece of the Pro-Mod argument.
However, a website on its own is like a tiny island in the middle of a vast ocean; a few lost souls may eventually wash up on its shores, but in order to thrive it ultimately needs a lighthouse, bridges, ports, an airfield and other ways of accessibility. In cyberspace, such accessibility is provided by advertisement and links from other sites (which in turn boost placement in search engine results). Consequently, the Pro-Mod argument needs strategy to promote its website. Such a strategy might consist of talking about it on other sites relating to modified individuals or getting linked to by blogs associated with modified people. However, as mentioned before, it might be useful to target an audience broader than just modified people. Thus, it might be useful to do something like create a group that links to the site on facebook where the unmodified can find it and learn about the argument.
1 Religion as an illegitimate basis for discrimination might come from a different source – such as our society’s deeply held commitment to the freedoms of religion, free speech and free association – insofar as religion is freely chosen or discarded. However, even religion is frequently characterized as innate, even if in other contexts people claim that it is freely chosen. For example, infants are frequently referred to as members of a religion despite their clear inability to have chosen their own religion.
