Previous - Next Page  02-13-2011

New Section: Abstract  (Bold Letters) - Second paragraph of the article.(3 sentences)

1.1.2  (This number can be parsed) to mean
Part 1. Section 1, Paragraph 2,  The paragraphs are sequentially numbered for ease of reference.

Chalmers 3 sentences comprise paragraph 2. (Numbering of sentences added.)

Abstract
[
1] The first of a three-part series of articles on the topical issue of tattooing and body piercing, this paper considers the history of tattooing and body piercing. [2] It charts the existence of tattooing and body piercing throughout history and provides an overview of techniques and functions of such activities. Touching on the global revival of tattooing and body piercing, the paper continues by [3] discussing the approaches to management of this industry, highlighting the trend towards state-controlled regulation as the current strategy of choice for controlling industry practices.

A few general remarks:

A)  Charting the existence of T&P, which will  be shown, is not accomplished by citing three random examples from archaeology, nor does the history of T&P consist of (incorrectly) citing three Pacific Islands as continuously tattooing. Details follow.

B)  The article claims that the technique of tattooing is to get the ink into the epidermis without getting it in the dermis. This upside-down understanding of something di Folco wrote shows Chalmers was writing without understanding the process of tattoo. The exact opposite is the case, and known by anyone familiar with tattoo. We all have enough common knowledge about the structure and function of the skin, especially the epidermis, to catch this error. It shows to me that she was not prepared to write this article. This is the tip of the iceberg to illustrate the errors that permeate the article.
Details follow.

C)  The article misinterprets state regulation as a "trend," misrepresenting state regulation of T&P as a  strategy of choice (!), whereas it is the opposite: Unwilling recalcitrant legislators were dragged into courts, forced by T&P practitioners to grant charter and constitutional rights to citizens, against the will of the legislators. Chalmers falsely states that for much of history governments did not manage or control tattoo. This conclusion comes from a lack of historical perspective - a lack of preparation. The opposite is the case. Details follow.

Chalmers spins a plausible tale - if you don't know anything about T&P - and likely the readers of this journal don't. They are likely to give it great applause, recommend it,  and cite it in further articles.

Chalmers' Part 1 is written as background to bring readers up to speed, to exhibit Chalmers'  knowledge of the subject (credentials, right to speak), written and claimed as a summary of T&P history.

Unknown to the journal readers, Chalmers gleans this history from (1) a children's book, (2) coffee-table picture books and (3) a nurse's so-called "history of T&P" which Chalmers "researched" (found) on-line.

For example, though she cites Jane Caplan, either Jane Caplan was not read or misinterpreted. Chalmers' rationale, the importance she places on her functionalist (statist) view of the role of government to promote and maintain Western Christian civilization makes me wonder if she selected Professor Rush's Spiritual Tattoo thinking the title affirmed her spiritual view, whereas again, she must not have read his book, or only page 18, because it is no affirmation of her religious views.

Chalmers identifies the problem: the popularity of T&P is the problem.

The growing popularity is the problem being addressed, not health risk.  The perception of risk, not reality, is being exploited.  Her solution: new regulations based on an expanded definition of health-risk is offered as the only way to diminish incidence, therefore prevalence (popularity). Infection, admittedly, at its best, is only a "weak link" to infection.

Part 1 presents her arguments: 

1) T&P are forbidden by Levitical injunction, are
2)
contrary to traditional Christian propriety (an identifying mark (J.Putzi), a dress code)
3) popularity
threatens the transfer of Western heritage to subsequent generations, are 4) associated with criminality, widely believed to be
5)
pathological, and
6)
negatively impact the ability of the younger generation to function in society, for example, to get a job.

The three parts argue that the T&P threat can be diminished by expanding the risk-to-health concept beyond the risk of infection, i.e., by re-interpreting health risk to include psycho-social risks, and then creating a complex set of rules and regulations to address those issues which will decrease the incidence, decrease the popularity of T&P, and only the state can do it.

She concludes the series by declaring her intention to conduct further studies to determine the best methods to accomplish these goals.