Stereotypically Speaking...

An article that I discovered (Attitudes toward and stereotypes of persons with body art:  implications for marketing management) describes a study that was done about the image that body art (tattoos and piercings - less ear piercings on women) displays.  It was conducted on college students - business majors in marketing classes - around the U.S. in the form of a survey.  They had to tell their thoughts on each question with answers ranging from "strongly disagree" to "strongly agree."  The reason behind the study was that many businesses of all kinds are hung up on dress codes.  What is acceptable and what is not in regards to body art.  They wanted to see what the future business world standards might turn into pertaining to tattoos and piercings.

I know as of now - from personal experience - that many types of businesses do not want their employees to have "non-conventional" piercings.  It will portray the wrong image to the customers.  This usually means that men cannot have piercings of any kind, but women are allowed ear piercings.  Tattoos are typically not acceptable for either gender.

I work at a chain grocery store.  I have a nose ring and a few smaller tattoos.  Our policy is no facial jewelry - aside from earrings (on women) - so we either have to cover them or take them out.  I choose to cover mine with a small piece of band-aid.  Every day, at least one or two customers will come up to me and the first line that pours from their mouth is "Really?  They make you cover your nose ring?"  Usually accompanied by, "That's ridiculous, it draws more attention to it that way."  Now these comments are not just from younger people (although a lot are).  I have had all ages - ranging from about eighty years old to probably thirteen - comment in the stated fashion.

So if most people do not care about a facial piercing, then why is it a policy?  What type of customer are they trying to appeal to?  Are the rules in place because the stereotypes associated with piercings and tattoos are not responsible, rebellious or non-professional?  Who actually thinks that way?  In some cultures, piercings and tattoos are religious, sacred and tradition.  So why are they deemed "bad" by some in mine?

Getting back to the article, the majority of the study concluded that body art possesses a negative stereotype in today's society and that you are viewed differently if you have multiple piercings or tattoos.  But the majority did not hold those same perceptions.  In fact, the bulk of the group actually found body art attractive.  And the younger the person questioned, the more they viewed it alluring.

This shows that although body art was at one point considered rebellious, "tough" or non-professional, it is becoming more accepted.  So instead of companies trying to hide body art among their employees, they should look passed it to the actual person.  After all, of the students surveyed, about half had tattoos and nearly 80% had piercings.  Keep in mind those were all business majors...

                  

Leisurely Mutilating Adolescents' Faces

Trying to find different wordings (to help better my search outcomes) I typed in "body adornment" into encylopedia.com .  One of the first listings that came up was "body mutilations and markings."  Interesting!  What I was lead to, was a very brief but eventually insightful definition from social traditions of body marking.  They listed the typical branding, tattooing, piercing.  But, at the end of the tidbit, they mentioned "face painting at children's parties."

Now this got me thinking....  How many times have you gotten your face painted either as a child or with your children at a party or carnival, etc.?  Did you even think twice about it or did you just run up enthusiastically yearning for the minimally detailed flower or tiger mask so you can show it off to your friends or parents?



There was nothing peculiar about having some random person paint a butterfly on your cheek, simply because it was at a party.  But what if it wasn't at a party?  What if one of your classmates or co-workers showed up on a typical Tuesday with a lovely bunny nose and whiskers?  What would you think?


CRAZY!!!  Oh my god, did you see their face?  What is wrong with them???  Probably something along those lines, huh?



Why?  Not because it was an irregular marking - although, yes, that is part of it.  But because it was an irregular marking on their face.  I know my culture (Midwest U.S.) typically does not accept 'unconventional' facial designs.  But in other cultures, they are viewed as a sign of status, religion, and even protection.


Learning the traits of different cultures - jewelry, adornment, traditions - will ultimately help you better understand the people from them.  So instead of automatically reverting to judging just because something is different or strange in your views, you will hopefully get passed that to see the actual person...just a thought....

Mourning: Lost on Today's Society

Rummaging through the articles (and pictures) I found about mourning jewelry, a thought came to my head:  why don't we still practice the same mourning traditions as they did before?  Are we being disrespectful to the dead?  Why does a simple funeral and burial suffice in today's terms?  Or is it assumed that we are honoring the deceased by solely remembering?


Now I understand that the mourning process could be a tinge extensive at times (depending on who you lost), but isn’t it practiced out of respect and love for the person?  Do we not hold the same standards of respect for our relative as they have in the past?  I mean, from my personal experiences, we basically put people in the ground and forget about it.  You wear your “mourning clothes” (or black/dress apparel) for one day, but after that go back to normal.  What makes today’s world any different from back then?  Why don’t we have a separate wardrobe to honor our cherished?  It may seem materialistic, but it is all out of respect and honor.

With all of that being said, I do know that you can get diamonds made from the ash remains of the person you are commemorating for today’s version of mourning jewelry.  Although I assume that you would wear it every day, so it does not have the same exclusiveness.  Still, it is the same concept.

I bet you’re wondering what this has to do with my jewelry blog anyway… I just found myself drawn to the fact that people have used certain jewelry - as well as dress, social events, etc. - for expressing their greif and nothing else.  That is its sole purpose, to visually display what the person is experiencing.  

                                                                            

Mourning Jewelry

I stumbled across an interesting site (http://www.artofmourning.com) and discovered a very intriguing subject - to me at least:  mourning jewelry.  Now, I know it existed and I knew the basics of the whole mourning process, but I never put any thought into it before.

Basically, after a loved one passed away, the people affected would go into mourning.  There were specific guidelines which you had to follow - that were more constricting to women than men - about how you dressed, social activities, etc.  This was really made popular by Queen Victoria after her husband, Prince Albert, died.  Now I am not going to really go into detail about that whole process, but focus more on the jewelry.  Oh, I should mention that I really only looked into the norms of mainly the Victorian era.

Typical pieces were represented - necklaces, earrings, rings, brooches - but they were not designed in a usual manner, although still fashionable.  Skulls were a very popular theme for rings.  They were sometimes accompanied by worms, serpents or urns.  And actually, mourning rings were used as a social status item.  They were typically made by the grieving family and passed out at the funeral.

The materials to construct the special jewelry varied.  Sometimes, it was made of jet, a fossilized driftwood that was black in color.  This matches the black dress that was characteristic of the mourning process.  Another popular material to use was hair.  They either got the locks from the actual cadaver or from a jeweler that specialized in constructing hair jewelry.  It was accepted because it was part of the person that did not reflect the death.

When I read this, it didn’t seem like too big of a deal.  I assumed that they just put it in a locket - which some did - or something of that nature.  But that’s not the entire case.  They actually made jewelry out of largely hair!  It seemed very intricate and detailed.



As I was looking at pictures of the pieces, I noticed how much they resembled some of today’s jewelry.  They seemed fashionable.  Especially with the skulls, because that seems to be a big trend in clothing and accessories.  I found it intriguing that popular accessories from the 1800’s could be viewed in the same light 200 years later.  Granted they would be used for completely different reasons.

I realize that clothing trends seem to go in loops.  (Straight legged jeans, leggings that were popular in the 80’s are once again in style today.)  I wonder if that is the same case for jewelry.  Do different cultures’ adornments fads go “in loops?”  How many years does it take?  Is it as common among men as it is women?

All of these I’ll leave for another time, but I must be done for now…