Body Modification – Sacred or Profane

Body Modification – Sacred or Profane

Abstract

Modifying the body in the form of body piercings and tattoos has become prevalent in modern societies within the last decade to the extent that it is currently part of everyday life in many regions. Existing evidence suggests that society views body piercings and tattoos differently based on the fact that some society members view them as a form of immortalization of important memories, spirituality, and self-expression, while others view them as representations of evil. There is, therefore, a significant level of uncomfortableness among individuals, with the most intense conflict arising between religious and non-religious people because some religious people believe that tattoos and piercings are a sin that is prohibited in the bible while other religious and non-religious believe that the bible only emphasizes on treating our body as the temple of God thus arguing that tattoos and piercings are a form of beautifying the body the same way people would beautify a temple. These conflicting views have led to the need to explore whether tattoos and piercings are a sin or not based on various religious interpretations and scripture verses. This report provides an overview of the profanity and spirituality of tattoos and piercings. The evidence reviewed suggests that tattoos and piercings are not a sin.

Introduction

Researchers have established a connection between active religious practices, religious beliefs, and deviant behaviors. Most arguments indicate that people with tough religious beliefs have a lower likelihood of engaging in deviant behavior because their conduct is regulated by religious teachings. Other researchers have also focused on explaining the role of religion in individual behavior by highlighting how people interact within groups which results in normative behavior. There has also been a debate on whether tattoos and piercings dictate a person’s behavior based on the prevalence of specific behaviors among people with these markings. For instance, most people with tattoos and many piercings are known to be rebellious.[1] The use of tattoos and piercings to modify the body has been embraced in many cultures, such as African, Asian, European, American, and Oceania, for a long time. These practices are visible in almost all cultures and are mainly used to pass various messages, including individuality, religious obligation, and group identity.[2] In the past, piercings were usually used in initiation rites to place the bearer in a specific age group or social group, while tattoos were used to represent religious affiliation, social status, or strength.[3] Contemporary viewpoints about people who have piercings and tattoos include judgments and stereotypes that mainly view the two types of body modifications as a sin. In most societies, social leaders continue to associate tattoos and piercings with criminal and rebellious activities, while others view them as a form of fashion, particularly among celebrities and models. One of the main drivers of the evolution of piercings, tattoos, and religion is the change in generations. Most people with tattoos and piercings are in the Generation X and millennials generations. The millennial generation in the United States is less religious compared to previous generations.[4] The rise of non-religious individuals with tattoos and piercings has further intensified the debate on whether the two types of body modifications are a sin or not, particularly in the Christian community.

The Past and Present State of Body Modifications and Religion

The notion that religion prohibits piercings and tattoos is a stereotype that has been passed from one generation to another since the invention of the two types of body modifications. Some people reference a divine ban against piercings and tattoos recorded in scriptures, including verses from the Christian Old Testament and Jewish Torah, such as one of the verses prohibiting body cuts to signify mourning or putting tattoos.[5]This verse was mainly used by Christian missionaries to control the behavior of the people they converted to Christianity and has since been dominant in Christian teachings against body modifications. The cultural stigma towards people with piercings and tattoos is also evident among conservative Christians, especially Catholics.[6] Those supporting body modifications argue that religious practice and faith connect us to a power that is beyond what we possess. The power is, however, reflected in our thoughts, actions, and how we let others know about existing connections. Religion, therefore, reflects and expresses adoration, thus making tattoos and piercings adornment. Thus, religious tattoos form a connection between adornment and adoration, firming a connection between how we express ourselves and who we are. External symbols of religious affiliation and identity are common among religious and non-religious people, which is why the view on tattoos and piercings is currently changing in modern society.[7] For instance, both religious and non-religious people wear necklaces, although, for religious people, the necklace may have a religious symbol, such as a cross. The garments worn by Muslim women also symbolize affiliation and identity. A clerical collar is also a common indicator of the profession of clergy to assume responsibility for how the individual behaves in maintaining their external declaration of their religious identity. Based on these comparisons, it is reasonable to argue that tattoos and piercings represent the same thing in terms of group affiliation, forming an identity, and managing an impression. Religious rituals also combine adornment and adoration.[8] Among Christians who follow a specific liturgy, the Holy Baptism Sacrament gives a child the name he or she is supposed to bear for the rest of their life. The name serves as a permanent form of identity, the same way a tattoo or piercing could be a permanent symbol that can be used to identify an individual. Therefore, there is an existing comparison between religious practices associated with forming an identity and piercings and tattoos used for the same purpose.

Theoretical Interpretation of the Perspectives on Tattoos and Piercings

Durkheim’s Theories

Durkheim’s theories focus on the importance of religion in social interaction. They posit that the ability of religion to excite followers means that their real desires can be focused on a concept or vision about life that is more important and larger than the lives of individuals. Durkheim does not perceive religion as false or an idea based on pure illusion but admits that it is something worth considering. His research indicates that in all religions, the believers look for and find a feeling of comfort, greater force, and strength for which they pray to their divinity. He adds that believers feel stronger when they perform certain ceremonies and rites. Durkheim also argues that has a vitalizing and strengthening impact on man and it helps individuals get a purpose in their lives. He mentions that modifying the body in religious practices serves various purposes. In his opinion, modifying the body proves that many people assign value to the same forms of practice and expression. Durkheim’s main focus is on how social standards within religious groups have an impact on the followers. It is, therefore, clear that religious groups can significantly influence what the people in the groups do to their bodies. Thus, there is a connection between religion and body modifications that needs to be explored to form a sound conclusion on whether getting a tattoo or piercings is a sin.

Symbolic Interactionism

This theory focuses on the associations among people within a society. The theory posits that facts are directed and founded on symbols.[9] The backbone of the theory is meanings arising from the interaction among individuals in a social environment and focuses on answering the question of determining the meanings and symbols emerging from individual interactions. The theory includes three main principles, which are language, thinking principle, and meaning. Language is believed to be the source of means for discussing meaning.[10] The theory recognizes the main meaning as the core of human conduct. Language offers meaning to individuals through symbols. Based on the theory, symbols are the basis of differentiating human social relations from the animal communication level. Human beings create meaning to symbols and express their understanding through language. Symbols thus form a foundation for communication. This implies that symbols are essential elements in forming any type of communication act. Viewpoint thinking plays a vital role in changing the interpretation of individuals about symbols.

Symbolic interactionism theory is also founded on three main propositions.[11] The first proposition is that human beings develop their attitudes toward things based on the meanings they perceive from things. The second proposition is that these meanings are drawn from the interaction of one of the meanings from its audience. The third proposition is that the meanings change within a process that includes various interpretations. Human conditions and objects do not feature an inherent meaning.[12] Meaning is connected to these meanings through human interaction. In religion, religious symbols portray the value of the symbolic interactionism perspective. For instance, a crescent moon and a star may only be two celestial shapes, but when they are merged, they make the international Muslim symbol. A cross is, on the other hand, only two bars or lines shaped like a “t’ but to Christians around the world, it symbolizes the crucifix, which has deep religious significance. A star of David also demonstrates two triangles that have been superimposed to form the shape of a star pointed in six directions but to Jews worldwide, it is a symbol of their religious faith, and it reminds them of the origin of their faith. Religious ceremonies and rituals also demonstrate the symbolic interactionism theory in different ways. They can have deep meaning and could incorporate laughing, crying, a feeling of togetherness with the people around a person, as well as other psychological and emotional states. For instance, many people may be drawn to transformation based on specific religious beliefs passed to them. This viewpoint could explain the perspective on getting a tattoo or piercings where Christians may consider it a sin because their interactions with other Christians have made them develop that perception.

The connection between the Christian and non-Christian perspectives on tattoos and piercings can further be elaborated using constructivism which is an extension of the symbolic interactionism theory proposing that reality is defined as what individuals cognitively build it. According to the constructivist view, individuals develop social constructs based on interactions with other people, and the lasting constructs are those with meanings that are widely accepted and agreed upon by most people within a society.[13] The constructivism approach is usually used to comprehend what is mostly referred to as abnormal within a society.

Profanity of Tattoos and Piercings

One of the main arguments against tattoos and piercings is grounded on the view that modifying the body violates scripture teachings prohibiting people from cutting their flesh or putting marks on their bodies. Those supporting this argument often quote bible verses in the Old Testament portraying the body as holy. The second argument is that tattooing and piercing are pagan practices. This is based on the fact that most people with tattoos and piercings are pagans with a tendency to engage in debauchery and idolatry.[14] It is also believed that pagans have no respect for their bodies and have no problem worshipping other gods.[15] Modern-day obsession with body modifications using tattoos and piercings has been in existence among native non-religious communities, thus making it a renewal of tribal practices. In different parts of the world, various paganistic beliefs and practices exist that promote body modifications. Many primitive tribes also use piercings and tattoos as symbols that will be used to identify an individual in the next world. Others stretch their earlobes to create big holes, and some may even stretch their lower lips and put piercings. They also serve as a form of identity in some tribes hence making them a primitive pagan practice. For instance, in Papua, which is a region located in New Guinea, tattoos and piercings are used as a symbol of coming of age among women and headhunting. Scholars claiming that tattooing and piercing are a sin also support their opinion by referring to hadiths such as the one narrated by Abu Juhayfah in Sahih al-Bukhari declaring that the Prophet cursed the people with tattoos as well as those who were doing tattoos on other people’s bodies. The scholars fail to hold the opinion that temporary markings such as henna are a sin. They also do not claim that those who convert to Islam who already had tattoos before being converted need to remove them. Tattoos could also be sinful, but they do not intrude upon Muslim teachings.[16] The prohibition of tattooing and piercings in Islam is also aimed at protecting Muslims from being infected with hepatitis, HIV/AIDS, and other infections that are transmitted through body fluids, and there is no straightforward mention of piercings or tattooing in the Quran.[17]

Some protestant researchers argue that the bible forbids body piercings and tattoos by citing Lev.19:8, which states that a person is prohibited from making any cuttings on their bodies on account of those who have died or tattooed their bodies. Biblical commentators from the Catholic faith argue that the prohibition in the verse is not part of the permanent moral law but part of the ritual law specified in the Old Testament.[18] Most critics believe that the prohibition in the verse was aimed at separating the Israelites from the Canaanites, while others believe that the body cuttings and tattoo marks in the verse are part of the Canaanite worship that included adultery. The church, however, does not focus on teaching that the sacred scriptures forbid body piercing and tattooing, but it provides principles applied in determining whether, in specific circumstances, it is sinful to be pierced or tattooed.

Another argument against tattoos and piercings focuses on modesty. The main argument under modesty focuses on whether or not an individual’s focus should be on God or themselves. Tattoos and piercings are usually made in a way that everyone looking at the tattooed part notices the tattoo. This limits modesty which is defined as the quality of not only dressing and behaving in ways that do not draw sexual attention, but also the quality of not being too confident or too proud.[19] The scriptures include various verses advising Christians against being proud and encouraging them to be modest hence making tattoos and piercings sinful. The profanity of tattoos and piercings also arises from the notion of rebellion and the mark of death. In scripture verses about the rapture and the end of times, death is considered the main theme associated with tattoos. The skull is among the main tattoos used. Many shops advertising tattoos and piercing services also use pornography and hell scenes, thus creating a notion of advertising sin. Tattoos and piercings are also associated with deviance and rebellion condemned in the bible hence making them sinful.

The Sacredness of Tattoos and Piercings

The sacredness of tattoos and piercings can be interpreted through Durkheim’s perspective. He states that body modifications among religious groups are embraced for various purposes. In his opinion, the act of using tattoos and piercings to modify the body indicates that the overall group of people assigns value to similar forms of practice and expression. In his study, one of the examples provided included the marking of the body as an indicator of being sacred based on the notion that anything marred with a precise symbol is sacred or holy. The marking of an individual as sacred is thus the most important symbol of dedication. Another example includes individuals cutting their bodies to symbolize mourning for someone who has died in the community. This is particularly common in naïve communities that have not yet embraced civilization and continue to cling to their religious practices. In some extreme instances, people may die from severe injuries they inflict on themselves to mar a ritual or ceremony such as mourning. According to Durkheim, these examples represent the struggle against death and the cohesion of a community.

In the first example, where markings are considered sacred, it means that an individual is protected from evil, particularly death, drought, and disease. Marking the body as sacred is associated with possessing sacred anointing. In the second example, the boy is considered sacred because it represents mourning to ensure that the departed soul gets a peaceful rest while showing other community members that death is not accepted. The mourning group also understands that death is a type of deviance, particularly because it leads to a reduced ability to create sustainability for the entire group. The most interesting part about Durkheim’s arguments on body modifications in the religious context is the connection it creates physically and metaphorically. Individuals also tend to maintain a collective group alive and maintain the connection between members when they share similar beliefs and perspectives, thus maintaining the culture across different generations.

The sacredness of tattoos is also evident among the Catholic Croats of Herzegovina and Bosnia, who used cross tattoos for apparent protection against being forced to convert to Islam and being enslaved under the occupation of the Ottoman empire in the two regions.[20] This type of tattooing has continued in the region and extended beyond its primary motivation. The Catholics in these regions tattooed their bodies during special religious festivities such as St Joseph’s Feast or during spring and mostly included Christian crosses on the chest, fingers, hands, below the neck, and on forearms. The conventional Coptic Christians residing in Egypt also tattooed themselves with the Coptic crosses symbols on their right wrists for the same historical reasons.[21] They set the trend across Christian communities in Armenia, Ethiopia, Maronite, and Syria.

Conclusion

The debate on whether it is sinful or not to get body piercings or tattoos is a heated debate that continues to yield new perspectives as people continue developing a modern perspective on what is happening around them, thus abandoning primitive beliefs. The current research has explored the two sides of the debate. The side arguing against tattoos and piercings focuses their arguments on the teachings of the scripture on body markings. The arguments may, however, also be influenced by affiliation with Christianity hence feeling that piercings and tattoos are sinful because they have developed the wrong meanings of these two types of body markings by interacting with other Christians against body markings. Those in support of body piercings, on the other hand, base their arguments on the sacred nature of body piercings and tattoos based on their use as sacred markings and an important symbol in society promoting community cohesion and a sense of belonging. Based on my evaluation of the significance of piercings and tattoos to various communities and the context in which they are used, I conclude that getting a piercing or tattoo is not a sin.

Bibliography

Alessandra, Bishai. “The Meaning of our Coptic Cross Tattoo.” 2021.

Baltzer-Jaray, Kimberly, and Tanya Rodriguez. “Fleshy Canvas.” Tattoos – Philosophy for Everyone, 2012, 38-50. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118252789.ch4.

Cristol, Jonathan. “Constructivism.” International Relations, 2011. https://doi.org/10.1093/obo/9780199743292-0061.

Dancer, Thom. “Introduction to Critical Modesty.” Critical Modesty in Contemporary Fiction, 2021, 1-19. https://doi.rg/10.1093/oso/9780192893321.003.0001.

Denzin, Norman K. Symbolic Interactionism and Cultural Studies: The Politics of Interpretation. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons, 2008.

Koch, Jerome R., Alden E. Roberts, Myrna L. Armstrong, and Donna C. Owen. “Correlations of Religious Belief and Practice with College Students’ Tattoo-Related Behavior.” Psychological Reports 94, no. 2 (2004), 425-430. doi:10.2466/pr0.94.2.425-430.

Kuscular, Remzi. “Cleanliness in Islam.” 2008.

Larsson, Göran. “Islam and tattooing: an old question, a new research topic.” Scripta Instituti Donneriani Aboensis 23 (2011), 237-256. doi:10.30674/scripta.67390.

Lim, Weng M., Ding H. Ting, Elvis Leo, and Cassandra Jayanthy. “Contemporary Perceptions of Body Modifications and Its Acceptability in the Asian Society: A Case of Tattoos and Body Piercings.” Asian Social Science 9, no. 10 (2013). doi:10.5539/ass. v9n10p37.

Maldonado-Estrada, Alyssa. “Men, Tattoos, and Catholic Devotion in Brooklyn.” Material Religion 16, no. 5 (2020), 584-613. doi:10.1080/17432200.2020.1756169.

Meltzer, Bernard N., John W. Petras, and Larry T. Reynolds. “The genesis of symbolic interactionism.” Symbolic Interactionism, 2020, 1-52. doi:10.4324/9781003074311-1.

Meltzer, Bernard N., John W. Petras, and Larry T. Reynolds. “Varieties of symbolic interactionism.” Symbolic Interactionism, 2020, 53-82. doi:10.4324/9781003074311-2.

Pavlaković, Vjeran. “Croatia: A History.” Journal of Croatian Studies 42 (2001), 153-156. doi:10.5840/jcroatstud20014213.

Peterson, Emily J. “Rite or Wrong: A Comparison of the Presence and Social Significance of Body Modifications in Different Religious Groups in Minnesota.” Undergraduate Research in Sociology, 2011, 19.

Quist-Adade, Charles. Symbolic Interactionism: The Basics. Vernon Press, 2019.

Rees, Michael. “A figurational understanding of tattooing.” Tattooing in Contemporary Society, 2021, 78-94. doi:10.4324/9780429295072-4.

Scheinfeld, Noah. “Tattoos and religion.” Clinics in Dermatology 25, no. 4 (2007), 362-366. doi: 10.1016/j.clindermatol.2007.05.009.

Stein, Judity A., and Richard L. Dukes. “Correlates and Predictive Associations of Tattoos and Piercings Among Adolescents.” PsycEXTRA Dataset, 2009. doi:10.1037/e629712009-001.

Sudbury, Jill. “Skin as Spiritual Script: Tibetan Buddhism, Tattoos, and the West.” Material Religion in Modern Britain, 2015, 165-183. doi:10.1057/9781137540638_9.

Wohlrab, Silke, Jutta Stahl, and Peter M. Kappeler. “Modifying the body: Motivations for getting tattooed and pierced.” Body Image 4, no. 1 (2007), 87-95. doi: 10.1016/j.bodyim.2006.12.001.

[1] Jerome R. Koch et al., “Correlations of Religious Belief and Practice with College Students’ Tattoo-Related Behavior,” Psychological Reports 94, no. 2 (2004):425.

[2] Weng M. Lim et al., “Contemporary Perceptions of Body Modifications and Its Acceptability in the Asian Society: A Case of Tattoos and Body Piercings,” Asian Social Science 9, no. 10 (2013): 37.

[3] Silke Wohlrab, Jutta Stahl, and Peter M. Kappeler, “Modifying the body: Motivations for getting tattooed and pierced,” Body Image 4, no. 1 (2007): 88.

[4] Judity A. Stein and Richard L. Dukes, “Correlates and Predictive Associations of Tattoos and Piercings Among Adolescents,” PsycEXTRA Dataset, (2009):25.

[5] Lev. 19:28 (NIV)

[6] Emily J. Peterson, “Rite or Wrong: A Comparison of the Presence and Social Significance of Body Modifications in Different Religious Groups in Minnesota,” Undergraduate Research in Sociology, (2011):19.

[7] Noah Scheinfeld, “Tattoos and religion,” Clinics in Dermatology 25, no. 4 (2007):363.

[8] Jill Sudbury, “Skin as Spiritual Script: Tibetan Buddhism, Tattoos, and the West,” Material Religion in Modern Britain, (2015):166

[9] Bernard N. Meltzer, John W. Petras, and Larry T. Reynolds, “Varieties of symbolic interactionism,” Symbolic Interactionism, (2020):15.

[10] Charles Quist-Adade, Symbolic Interactionism: The Basics (Vernon Press, 2019):15.

[11] Norman K. Denzin, Symbolic Interactionism and Cultural Studies: The Politics of Interpretation (Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons, 2008): 20.

[12] Bernard N. Meltzer, John W. Petras, and Larry T. Reynolds, “The genesis of symbolic interactionism,” Symbolic Interactionism, (2020):20.

[13] Jonathan Cristol, “Constructivism,” International Relations, (2011):4.

[14] Michael Rees, “A figurational understanding of tattooing,” Tattooing in Contemporary Society, (2021):79.

[15] Kimberly Baltzer-Jaray and Tanya Rodriguez, “Fleshy Canvas,” Tattoos – Philosophy for Everyone, (2012):42.

[16] Remzi Kuscular, “Cleanliness in Islam,” (2008):43.

[17] Göran Larsson, “Islam and tattooing: an old question, a new research topic,” Scripta Instituti Donneriani Aboensis 23 (2011):240.

[18] Alyssa Maldonado-Estrada, “Men, Tattoos, and Catholic Devotion in Brooklyn,” Material Religion 16, no. 5 (2020):586.

[19] Thom Dancer, “Introduction to Critical Modesty,” Critical Modesty in Contemporary Fiction, (2021):2.

[20] Vjeran Pavlaković, “Croatia: A History,” Journal of Croatian Studies 42 (2001):154.

[21] Bishai Alessandra, “The Meaning of our Coptic Cross Tattoo,” 2021.

ORDER A PLAGIARISM-FREE PAPER HERE

We’ll write everything from scratch

---

The course will analyze different theories and methods in the study of religion. This area of study necessarily demands an interdisciplinary approach to the subject, taking into account the different disciplinary approaches. We have identified important perspectives coming from History, Theology, Philosophy, Psychology, Psychoanalysis, Sociology, and Anthropology; our course will present a panorama of these approaches, with special emphasis on anthropological, sociological, theological, philosophical, and historical approaches. The course will develop key issues and concepts in the study of religion. It will be taught in a seminar format.

TEXTBOOKS
Required Book:
Daniel Pals, Nine Theories of Religion (Oxford, 2015)
Recommended books:
Victor Turner, The Ritual Process (Aldine 1995) ISBN: 978-0202011905 [Anthropology]
Gerth & Mills, From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology (Oxford, 1953) ISBN: 978-0195004625 [Sociology]
Durkheim, The Elementary Forms of Religious Life, Dover, n.d.) ISBN: 978-0029080108 [Sociology] Marx & Engels, On Religion (Dover, n.d.) ISBN: 978-0486454504 [Sociology]
Loyd Easton & Kurt Guddat, editors, Writing of the Young Marx on Philosophy and Society (Hackett, 1997) ISBN: 0872203689 [Sociology]
Mircea Eliade, The Myth of the Eternal Return (Princeton University Press, 2005) ISBN: 978- 0691123509 [Phenomenology-History of Religions]
Wilfred C. Smith, The Meaning and End of Religion (Fortress Press, 1991) ISBN: 978-0800624750 [History of Religions]
Rudolf Otto, The Idea of the Holy (Galaxy Books, 1958) ISBN: [Phenomenology] Sigmund Freud, Civilization and its Discontents (Norton, 2010) ISBN: [Psychology]

READINGS ON CANVAS:
Jonathan Z.. Smith, “Religion, Religions, Religious” (from Critical Terms for Religious Studies) History-of-Religions Methodology:
Ernst Troeltsch, “Historical and Dogmatic Method in Theology,” “The Place of Christianity Among the World Religions”, “Half a Century of Theology: A Review”

Anthropological Methodology:
Clifford Geertz, “Religion as a Cultural System,” “Thick Description: Toward and Interpretive Theory of Culture” T. Asad, “The Construction of Religion as an Anthropological Category” [on Geertz] M. Deflem, “Ritual, Anti-Structure, and Religion” [on Victor Turner]
978-0195002102
978-0393304510