Journal of Contemporary Ethnography 2009 Orend 493 517

http://jce.sagepub.com/Ethnography

Journal of Contemporary

http://jce.sagepub.com/content/38/4/493The online version of this article can be found at:

DOI: 10.1177/0891241608330014

2009 38: 493Journal of Contemporary EthnographyAngela Orend and Patricia Gagné

Corporate Logo Tattoos and the Commodification of the Body

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

found at: can beJournal of Contemporary EthnographyAdditional services and information for

http://jce.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:

http://jce.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:

http://jce.sagepub.com/content/38/4/493.refs.htmlCitations:

What is This?

- Jul 6, 2009Version of Record >>

at COLUMBIA UNIV on December 10, 2012jce.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://jce.sagepub.com/

http://jce.sagepub.com/content/38/4/493

http://www.sagepublications.com

http://jce.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

http://jce.sagepub.com/subscriptions

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

http://jce.sagepub.com/content/38/4/493.refs.html

http://jce.sagepub.com/content/38/4/493.full.pdf

http://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtml


Corporate Logo Tattoos and the Commodification of the BodyAngela OrendPatricia GagnéUniversity of Louisville

This research explores the sociological factors underlying the increasing popularity of corporate logo tattoos. The authors draw upon critical theory, sociology of the body, and consumption to analyze data from in-depth inter-views with a small sample of subjects with a corporate logo tattoo. Findings suggest that the increasing popularity of logo tattoos is a product of the com-modification of culture via the culture industry. Findings show that the majority of the sample was motivated by brand loyalty and self-identification with a brand philosophy or lifestyle, while a small minority attempted to alter the intended meaning of the logo by appropriating it into a simulated mean-ing. This research suggests that corporate logo tattoos are one way that cor-porations have inscribed themselves onto the bodies and into the identities of many of those who acquire them, while others attempt to use such body modifications as a way to play with postmodern images.

Keywords: tattoos; commodification; consumption; identity, culture industry; body modification

Since the late 1960s, Western popular culture has witnessed a resurgence in the practice of body modification, particularly with respect to the

popularity of tattoos. An under-recognized but socially salient aspect of this trend has been the growing popularity of permanent corporate logo tattoos. At the turn of the century, for example, Harley was the most widespread corporate logo tattoo in North America (Sheldon, Godward, and DeLongis

Journal of Contemporary Ethnography

Volume 38 Number 4August 2009 493-517

© 2009 SAGe Publications10.1177/0891241608330014

http://jce.sagepub.comhosted at

http://online.sagepub.com

493

Authors’ Note: Thanks to the Department of Sociology and the Lambda branch of Alpha Kappa Delta at the University of Louisville for their financial support of this project and to Clarence Talley and Nancy Potter for their comments on earlier drafts of this work. Direct all correspondence to Angela Orend, Department of Sociology, University of Louisville, Louisville, KY 40292; e-mail: [email protected].



2001), with the popularity of logo tattoos expanding to include others, such as Nike, Adidas, Budweiser, Corona, Apple, Ford, Chevy, and Volkswagen, to name just a few (Klein 1999; C. Magill, personal communication). The growing popularity of corporate logo tattoos led one observer to remark that such body art was “the ultimate in chic” (Bradberry 1997, F1).

Little research has examined the rising popularity of corporate logo tat-toos, although the literature on tattoos in general provides some insight into this new trend of body modification. This research, together with the sociol-ogy of the body and consumption, informs our analysis of the growing popularity of corporate logo tattoos. We situate our data analysis within the literature on the body and consumer culture, which is divided on whether bodily modifications in general are the result of passive actors succumbing to commodification and social pressures to conform (Foucault 1990; Turner 1992, 1996) or whether those who modify their bodies are active agents in an exercise of power (Bakhtin 1968; Featherstone 1991a; Frank 1991). Thus, we seek to answer our main research questions: What are the mean-ings that those who acquire corporate logo tattoos ascribe to them and what motivates some individuals to inscribe themselves with a corporate symbol? Are corporate logo tattoos a form of resistance against the “culture industry” (Adorno and Horkheimer 1976), are they a manifestation of the commodifi-cation of the body, or, following the theoretical lead of Patricia Hill Collins (2000), are they “both” the former “and” the latter? This research adds to previous scholarship by situating an analysis of corporate logo tattoos within the literature on the sociology of the body and consumption.

Literature Review

Tattoos in Contemporary Western Culture

After an early period of association with criminals, the lower class, sail-ors, sideshow circus “freaks,” and exotic “savages” (Govenar 2000, 214-15), the popularity of tattoos in mainstream Western culture increased in the 1960s and 1970s (Rubin 1988; Vail 2000). This “Tattoo Renaissance” was due, in part, to the increasing respect earned by a number of well-known, professionally trained tattoo artists (Vail 2000). Although primarily associ-ated with bikers and hippies, tattoos during this time gained increasing respectability as their prior association with convicts gave way to a growing interest in their high quality (Levins 1998). By the mid-1980s, tattoos were accepted by broader segments of mainstream society, and by the 1990s

494 Journal of Contemporary ethnography



white suburban females were “the fastest growing demographic of the local tattoo market,” with half of all such body modifications being done on women (Donovan 1997, 1c). By the last years of the twentieth century, tat-toos were a widespread phenomenon, with approximately 15 percent of all Americans having at least one tattoo (Sever 2003).

A major attraction of tattoos is that they are permanent bodily changes that may serve to anchor the self in the postmodern world (Sweetman 1999, 52-53). Research also indicates that tattoos are used to signify identity (Giddens 1991, 31) and group affiliation (DeMello 2000; Sanders 1988; Velliquette and Murray 1999). Some individuals collect tattoos and affiliate with a heavily tat-too subculture (Velliquette and Murray 1999). Others, known as Modern Primitives, combine multiple tattoos with piercings and other body modifica-tions to signify membership and resistance to “mainstream” society (Vale and Juno 1989). Because it connotes voluntary self-marginalization, Forbis (1994, 33) argues that such heavy body modification can be a form of “resistance to capitalist commodity culture” (also see Kleese 1999; Re/Search 1999; Rosenblatt 1997; Vale and Juno 1989). Vale and Juno (1989, 5) argue that the human body is “the last artistic territory resisting cooptation and commodifica-tion” (also see Atkinson 2003; Polhemus and Proctor 1978; Rosenblatt 1997; Rubin 1988; Vail 2000). Missing in this research is a focus on the motivations and meanings related to the acquisition of corporate logo tattoos, which, as a form of standardized commodified images, may or may not be a form of resistance.

Turner (1997, 1999) contends that tattoos are a routine feature of consumer culture. Drawing on Baudrillard’s (1995, 1996, 1998) argument that the mass production of signs in postmodern society has led to a loss of meaning, with the sign bearing little, if any, connection to its original referent, Turner (1999, 41) maintains that tattoos are part of a crisis of identity in postmodern times where “body marks are commercial objects in a leisure marketplace and have become optional aspects of a body aesthetic, which playfully and ironically indicate social membership” whereas “tattoos have no cosmic foundation from which meaning could be derived.” As such, they are part of the spectacle of signs that are vacuous messages to the self (also see Bauer 2002; Foster and Hummel 2000). Similarly, Featherstone (1991a, 1991b, 1999) argues that tattoos are an embodied expression of hedonism, influenced by a consumer culture heavily affected by advertising. Accordingly, tattooed bodies are “commo dities on display,” with tattoos having little connection to the referents they once symbolized (Featherstone 1991a, 173; also see Scheper-Hughes and Wacquant 2002).

Orend, Gagné / Corporate Logo Tattoos 495



Factors Underlying the Popularity of Corporate Logo Tattoos

Consumption reinforces status boundaries (Veblen 1994). The goal of mar-ket advertising in advanced capitalist societies is to sell commodities as impor-tant elements of identity and social relationships in mass society (Klein 1999) that will help consumers to create and maintain social relationships (Douglas and Isherwood 1979, 60). “Consumer capitalism” survives by creating false needs among affluent shoppers (Barber 2007). Capitalists do this through the process of “branding,” a concept that connotes the idea that the brand and what it signifies have become more important than the actual product (Klein 1999; Travis 2000). By equating brands with social life, capitalist marketers create “faux needs” (Barber 2007) for products that become part of consumers’ social experience as they subconsciously equate the product’s label with a desired lifestyle, identity, and community (Klein 1999; Travis 2000). The result is that brand name products offer more as status symbols than they do in pragmatic utility. In advanced capitalist societies, identity, status, and community mem-bership are formulated and communicated through consumption (Austin, Gagné, and Orend forthcoming; Campbell 1989; Corrigan 1997; Falk 1994; Featherstone 1991b; Goldman and Papson 1996; Gottdiener 2000; Lash and Urry 1994; Maffesoli 1996; McCracken 1988; Otnes 1988; Ritzer 1999; Schor and Holt 2000; Shields 1992; Slater 1997).

As part of the commodification of culture (Bordo 1993a; Featherstone 1991b; Gottdiener 2000; hooks 1992; Schor and Holt 2000), consumers themselves become branded (Peters 1997), the result of which is a “commod-ity self” (ewen 1976, 45). In a market where shoppers do not need the items they buy, marketers urge them to spend more for brand name products by convincing them that the goods will convey status, foster entré to desired communities, and create group and individual identity. We define commodi-fication within the context of Adorno and Horkheimer’s (1976) theory of the “culture industry,” which standardizes and appropriates cultural products for mass audiences. Thus, the commodification of culture is a process where cultural objects and ideas become pastiche products that are “bought and sold” in the marketplace. Within this theoretical framework, we examine corporate logo tattoos as a potential expression of their bearers’ desire to “buy into” consumer culture by literally creating a commodified “branded body.”

Tattoo Consumers: Rebellious or Commodified Bodies?

Although social scientists generally agree that the body is socially con-structed (e.g., Bordo 1993a, 1993b; Butler 1993; Crossley 2001; Falk 1994; Featherstone 1991a, 1991b; Foucault 1978, 1995; Scott and Morgan 1993;




Shilling 1993; Synott 1993; Turner 1996; Williams and Bendelow 1999), scholars disagree as to whether those who alter their bodies are passively “duped” into conforming to social and cultural pressures or whether they are active agents in constructing their own bodies (Chapkis 1986; Davis 1995; Douglas 1966; Mulvey 1989; author citation 2002). Douglas (1966) maintains that the body is a metaphor for the social system, in which the physical body is an expression of culturally imposed meanings.

By contrast, Frank (1991, 46) argues that social bodies are the result of individual agency. Similarly, Davis (1995) contends that women’s use of cosmetic surgery is an act of agency. One way of theoretically making sense of this debate is to draw on the work of Michel Foucault. In some of his work, he argues that the body is “docile” (Foucault 1995), constructed by “a great many distinct regimes” and that it is “the prisoner of culture” (Foucault 1986, 380) that can only be achieved “through a strict regimen of disciplinary action” (Foucault 1995, 136). Foucault argues that the social exercise of power over bodies is carried out through the “panopticon,” a metaphor for the way that institutions constantly watch and seek to control people via surveillance methods. Similar to Gramsci’s (1971) concept of hegemony, Foucault contends that the power of the panopticon is exercised as people self-regulate. The power of such self-regulation has been empiri-cally demonstrated in the research literature (Chapkis 1986; Davis 1995; Mulvey 1989; Gagné, Pat, and McGaughey 2002).

One of the difficulties of applying a Foucauldian perspective to an analysis of embodiment is that Foucault (1978, 95) also argued that because power is exercised discursively, “where there power, there is resistance.” Thus, power is not a zero-sum game in which certain agents have it and others do not. Instead, it is diffused in society. Accordingly, people are not passively manip-ulated into internalizing dominant ideologies, nor do they lose agency as they are pressured by bodily discourse and regimens. For Foucault (1978, 95), because the “body is invested in power relations” it can also express “body power,” not as “property, but as strategy” (Foucault 1995, 26).

Applying this Foucauldian perspective, some researchers argue that consumers are not uncritical, passive victims of the capitalist system. Rather, they engage in a discursive exercise of power during consumption (Twitchell 1999). In this vein, advertising and marketing are viewed as reflecting, rather than dictating, the desires of consumers, with consump-tion offering control over communal meanings ascribed to self and social relations and opportunities to exercise power as shoppers decide which products to buy in the “democracy” of the marketplace (Fiske 1989). Fiske (1989) argues that consumers are engaged in acts of resistance when they alter the intended meanings and uses of commodities.




Thus, we are left with the question whether consumers of corporate logo tattoos have been “duped” into branding their bodies with capitalist insig-nia, whether they use them as signs of resistance, or if the acquisition of such body art is “both” an expression of a commodity self “and” a form of resistance to the commodification of culture.

Research Method

The data for this article come from qualitative ethnographic observation and fieldwork in tattoo parlors, thirteen in-depth semistructured interviews, and eight conversational interviews. Qualitative methods are best used when attempting to understand a social phenomenon about which little is known (Strauss and Corbin 1990) and are considered the most appropriate for dis-covering underlying motivations, feelings, values, attitudes, and perceptions about social phenomena. Our goal is to understand the phenomenon of cor-porate logo tattoos from our subjects’ frames of reference and to give them “presence of voice in the text” of our research findings (eisner 1991, 36).

This research began in 2001 when the first author began observing tattoo parlors and conducting informal interviews with tattoo artists as part of a separate project (Orend 2003). During this period, the first author observed approximately eight tattoo parlors located in a large metropolitan area. She witnessed interactions between tattoo artists and potential and current cli-ents, watched clients receive tattoos, observed artists design tattoos and discuss styles with potential clients, and participated in conversations with tattoo artists and customers. Although this previous participant observa-tional data have not been included for analysis in the current study, they provided us with background information about tattoos and enabled us to better understand the trends found within the literature.

The first author conducted all of the interviews and ethnographic field-work. By using field observation at local tattoo parlors in addition to semi-structured and conversational interviewing methods, she was able to add or delete questions based on the information generated during the interview in addition to gaining a “first hand” look at the context of local tattoo parlors (Lofland and Lofland 1984; Werner and Schoepfle 1987). She conducted thirteen interviews using standard semistructured interview methods with eight interviews face-to-face, three by telephone, and two via an online chat service. She taperecorded all but the online interviews and took notes on the setting and context (Lofland and Lofland 1984; Patton 1990). She con-ducted most of the eight additional unrecorded conversational interviews in tattoo parlors, recording field notes after the conversations. Conversational




interviews are an established method in field research, used when more formal interviews are impractical (Arksey and Knight 1999). Thus, the data for this article consist of transcripts and field notes of thirteen formal inter-views and eight conversational interviews (N = 21).

In addition to demographic questions and those about the number, type, and bodily location of the subjects’ tattoos, our interview guide focused on the history of each tattoo, including the decision-making process before get-ting each one and what it meant to the subject. We also included questions soliciting opinions about the social acceptability of tattoos, why most people get them, why the subject acquired his or her tattoo(s), whether the subject had any other body modifications, and, if so, what kind. Following those questions, the interviewer focused similar inquiries on the respondent’s cor-porate logo tattoo and what the company and the logo meant to him or her.

Sample

We used a purposive criterion sampling method, designed to select “infor-mation-rich cases for in-depth study” (Patton 1990, 168) to recruit and sample research subjects. Toward that end, the first author placed flyers at local tattoo parlors; coffee shops, restaurants, stores, and bars; and two universities in a midsized Midwestern city. In addition, she placed an advertisement in the enter-tainment section of a free alternative local newspaper and posted a notice about the study on numerous Internet newsgroups, listservers, and chat rooms.

We used the following criteria to determine which tattoos to include and exclude: (1) the logo must be an official trademark (™) or a federally reg-istered (®) symbol of a corporation or a name-brand product and (2) the tattoo must be permanent. We excluded tattoos of band names, album cov-ers, cartoon characters, college or university symbols, sports teams, and other noncorporate logos. Of the twenty-one respondents included in this study, the first author documented the following corporate logo tattoos: Apple (5), Harley Davidson (2), Louisville Slugger (2), Nike (2), and one of each of the following: Churchill Downs (horse racing track), Cat’s Meow (New Orleans bar), Crayola, Hershey Kiss, IBM, Ironman (body fitness company), Fender (guitar company), Lego, Pearl (drum company), and a combined tattoo that included Real (dairy corporation) with Life (maga-zine) which read “RealLife.”1 We stopped recruiting subjects when we reached a point of theoretical saturation (Lincoln and Guba 1985).

Sample Demographics

Our sample included nineteen white men, one African American woman, and one white woman. Our method was designed to elicit a sample that is




representative of the larger population; however, we lacked the inclusion of many women and ethnic minorities in our study. The literature on tattoos in general strongly suggests that whites are more likely than people of color to obtain tattoos and that, while white women are the fastest growing demo-graphic group to obtain tattoos, they are still a minority of the tattooed population (Levins 1998). There is no literature to suggest whether demo-graphic trends among those acquiring corporate logo tattoos are similar to those with non-logo tattoos.

The ages of those who did complete interviews ranged from twenty-four to forty-three, with the majority younger than thirty-five and a mean age of thirty-three. Tattoos are generally more common among the young (Sever 2003), so it is not surprising that the majority of our subjects were under thirty-five. eleven subjects were lightly tattooed (one to three tattoos), three were moderately tattooed (four to six), and seven were heavily tattooed (seven or more). Nine had one or more body piercings, with six of those having more than a pierced ear. All of the subjects had only one corporate logo tattoo, though RealLife had combined two logos into one tattoo. Our sample, then, is primarily one of relatively young white male adults.

Data Analysis

After the interviews were completed and the tapes transcribed, we analyzed the data using established analytic inductive qualitative methods (Charmaz 1983; Patton 1990). We relied on the research literature to pro-vide us with “sensitizing concepts” (Smelser 1976) and began with “open coding” (Strauss and Corbin 1990) by examining the data and identifying general patterns and themes that emerged from the data. After the open cod-ing process, we went back through the data several times to make categori-cal, conceptual, and theoretical notations. After writing our findings, we went back through the data again to ensure that we had not misinterpreted the data or omitted key findings.

Findings

Meanings Ascribed to Non-logo Tattoos: Self and Others

The people we interviewed and conversed with said that their own non-logo tattoos signified something personal that they wished to communicate to themselves and others. That “something” included interests, identity, impor-tant social events, and, for some, membership in a heavily “inked” subculture.




All felt strongly that a tattoo should communicate something about its bearer, and they expressed disdain for those who purchased flash art. Churchill Downs, for example, explained, “It’s like labeling your interests on you. . . . The type that I get says something about me. I want it to be more personal.” Similarly, Apple #2 explained that he got tattoos to “mark moments in my life, sort of a story of myself and my beliefs.” examples of non-logo tattoos that expressed something about the individual included a poker player who had a tattoo of a poker hand and a punk rock enthusiast with several band names, album covers, and song titles tattooed on his body. Cat’s Meow explained, “It’s like you send out signals of what you’re into.”

At one time, tattoos served as signifiers of the boundary between main-stream society and a self-marginalized subculture. Although getting a tattoo might connote membership in a mainstream organization, such as a branch of the military, body art was often used to signify resistance to the dominant culture. As tattoos increased in popularity in the 1960s and became socially acceptable by the 1990s, our respondents recognized that “ink” had lost much of its potential to express rebellion. They believed that most other people got tattoos because of the increasing social acceptability of body art and to “be cool” and that acquiring body art for that reason was wrong. Apple #2, for example, said, “I hate it when I see people walk in and pick something off the wall just to have a tattoo. It should mean something.” They further lamented the declining utility of tattoos to signify membership in a modified subculture. Lego explained, “Sadly . . . as with anything that becomes popular, anyone can do it now,” while Cat’s Meow com-plained, “What used to be an exclusive club is way too easy to get into now.” Our respondents bemoaned the cooptation of body art and the decline of its potential to express rebellion. Apple #2, for example, said, “With tat-tooing being so popular, [what] are you really rebelling against?”

Just as capitalism creates “faux needs” among satiated consumers, it appears that the tattoo industry has commodified this form of body modifi-cation, drawing in customers with the notion that flash art chosen on a whim will convey rebellion against mainstream social conventions. Cat’s Meow explained that the majority of people who get tattoos “think it’s rebellious, but it’s a false sense of rebellion.” Among our sample, there was a general consensus that the impact of the original rebellious potential of tattoos had declined as their popularity had increased. Still, most held out hope that tattoos still held the potential to signify rebellion against the dominant culture, if one were willing to “take it to the next level” by becoming heavily tattooed or getting tattoos on the face or neck.




All of our respondents distinguished between those who were lightly and heavily tattooed and recognized that the ante had been raised for those wish-ing to use tattoos as a form of resistance. For instance, Harley #2 said, “It was kinda cool when you got looked upon as being a rogue or a thug or whatever. . . . I’m going on with the next step and becoming heavily tat-tooed because havin’ one or two tattoos is pretty normal now.” Similarly, the area of the body that was tattooed and whether or not the tattoos could be concealed also appeared to be a marker of rebellion. RealLife, who was lightly tattooed, explained, “The face is one of the last taboos, just because of the sheer hard core–ness of that part of the body, highly visible.” In con-trast, heavily tattooed Pearl Drums had body art that was highly visible on his neck and embraced the stigma associated with his tattoos. He said, “Yea, I get looks a lot. . . . People just stare. They think, ‘Oh he’s bad. He’s on drugs’ or something.” Despite, or perhaps because of, these reactions, he said, “I’m proud of my tattoos, so I wear these tank tops all the time. I want to show it off or I wouldn’t have it.” Similarly, heavily modified Harley #2 said, “I go to the point of cutting sleeves off my shirts just so I can show more ink, you know?” The heavily tattooed members of our sample said they wanted to be perceived as different from mainstream society. They thought that being heavily modified was a way of exercising agency and marking boundaries between those who used tattoos to signify resistance and those who had succumbed to the pressures of popular culture.

Our respondents appear to have recognized some of the cultural pres-sures influencing others to acquire tattoos. They collectively expressed the opinion that most tattoo consumers had been duped by “coolness,” using them as a symbol of their faux rebellion against mainstream culture. In theoretical terms, they perceived the bodies of most other tattoo consumers as “prisoners of culture” (Foucault 1995, 136). By contrast, our respondents saw their own tattoos and those of people who were heavily tattooed or with body art on the face or neck as an expression of agency. They said they did not get tattoos to be cool. Instead, they saw body art as a means of com-municating something about themselves to others and to mark the boundary between mainstream society and those who were more “hard core” in their use of tattoos as insignia of resistance. Our sample, whether lightly or heav-ily tattooed, thought of their own tattoos as an exercise of agency. Putting the matter succinctly, heavily tattooed Pearl Drums exclaimed, “It makes me feel like I’m powerful.”

It appears that as tattoos have been mass produced and mass marketed, gaining wider acceptability in mainstream culture, they have become com-modified and their utility as an act of rebellion has become limited. At the turn




of the century, light to moderate use of tattoos, particularly when they are chosen from the “flash” designs available in most parlors, appears to be a form of pseudo-rebellion. As a cultural expression of resistance, our research sug-gests that individuals need to be heavily modified or to have their tattoos (and other modifications) placed on areas of the body still deemed outside the boundaries of contemporary mainstream society. It remains to be seen what the next level of rebellion will become if and when “the next level” becomes part of consumer culture. In the interim, the question remains whether corpo-rate logo tattoos are an exercise of rebellion and/or if those with logo tattoos have been duped as they believed others had been in acquiring their non-logo tattoos.

Meaning and Motivations: Corporate Logo Tattoos

Two primary themes emerged from our data regarding the motivations and meanings respondents ascribed to their own corporate logo tattoos. Fifteen respondents said their motivation to get the tattoo was brand loyalty and that, for them, the logo signified personal and group identity as well as adherence to a lifestyle associated with the brand. The second major theme, the simu-lacrum (Baudrillard 1995), as expressed by six respondents, was the intent to appropriate the logo and to “play” with the meanings the brand represented. In the following section we discuss those motivated by brand loyalty before turning to those who altered the original meaning of the logo.

Brand Loyalty, Identity, Community, and Lifestyle

The key to understanding the most common motivation for getting a corporate logo tattoo is consumers’ belief in the meanings behind the sym-bols. In addition to signifying brand loyalty, our respondents’ logo tattoos commonly conveyed individual and group identity, lifestyle, and, for some, membership in a community created by marketers.

Identity. Postmodernists argue that the commodification of culture is made possible, in part, by the fragmentation of society (DeBord 1995; Jameson 1991; Root 1996). Specifically, as individual identities are less rooted in kinship and geographic communities, individuals are influenced by consumer culture to believe that they can purchase individual and group iden-tity through the products they buy. Just as consumers believe that the products they purchase say something about who they are, our brand-loyal respondents reported that their logo tattoos represented something about their social identi-ties. For example, Apple #3 said, “People know me as a Mac guy. There are




few things that I’m always gonna be known for, and that’s absolutely one of them.” Although similar to our data on non-logo tattoos, which has shown the desire to communicate identity to be an important motive for getting tattoos, the acquisition of logo tattoos differs in at least one significant way. The iden-tity represented by corporate logos is created by the culture industry via mar-keting agents, corporate executives, and advertising agencies. The fact that our respondents used logo tattoos to communicate information about the self sug-gests that their identities had also been commodified.

Group identity and community. Individual identity was situated within commodified collective identities and communities. Just as our respondents were motivated by brand loyalty and a desire to communicate individual identity to others, they fetishized the logo, buying into the ideology created by the culture industry. This commodification of group identity is similar to “consumer tribes” (Maffesoli 1996). Those with Apple tattoos, for example, believed that users of that computer brand were inherently more creative and “hip” than PC users and that Apple computers were technologically superior to all others. Apple #2, for example, stated as fact that Apple is “the most technologically advanced computer maker” and that the company had “changed the world.” He continued, “I am an Apple freak. . . . I live and die by my Mac.” Similarly, those with Harley tattoos believed that owners of that brand of motorcycle were more rebellious and free than owners of other brands or non-riders. Lego’s tattoo signified his heavy involvement with the “Lego community,” groups of people who create robots and other items with Lego blocks, whom he deemed more creative than others. Given that logos and the meanings they represent are created by corporate marketers, such tattoos appear to signify the commodification or “branding” (Klein 1999; Travis 2000) of individual and group identity.

Although not the only source of identity and community among our respondents, corporations appear to have affected their patterns of associa-tion. Among our respondents, corporate logo tattoos signified membership in groups that, according to Maffesoli (1996, 9) were “organized around the catchwords, brand names and sound bites of consumer culture.” Maffesoli found that membership in consumer tribes was impermanent and fluid. For our respondents, the permanent inscription of signifiers of group member-ship onto the body connoted relatively permanent membership in the tribe. For most, the inscription of the logo onto their bodies served to reinforce that loyalty, though not in a way that ensured lifelong allegiance. When loyalty diminished or one no longer wished to affiliate with the tribe, such




sentiments could be difficult to communicate, particularly when the logo was tattooed on a part of the body difficult to cover.

Lifestyle. In addition to identity, community, and personal history, the logo of a particular corporation signified participation in a lifestyle that included, but frequently moved beyond, one particular brand. The logo was deemed to be the ultimate signifier of the lifestyle in which our participants engaged. For example, Churchill Downs said that horse racing was “the one obsession in my life.” He believed that the Churchill Downs race track, home of the Kentucky Derby, hosted the world’s ultimate race, but his life-style centered on horse racing, in general. Rather than getting a race horse and jockey or another non-logo tattoo to signify his passion for the sport, he chose the track’s logo, explaining that it “shows my dedication, not just to Churchill Downs, but to horse racing. . . . It’s symbolic of the love I have for the industry.” Similarly, Ironman’s logo tattoo and the corporation itself represented “people who live an active lifestyle” and were “hard core” dedicated athletes. Rather than a tattoo of himself crossing a finish line, he chose the corporate logo to commemorate the completion of his first triath-lon. He explained, “When I got it, I didn’t think of it as a corporate symbol. It was more of an accomplishment I made.” Similarly, Cat’s Meow got the tattoo of a “Hurricane,” a pseudonym for the drink for which a particular New Orleans bar was famous. He said that he got “shitfaced” (drunk) and “had a really good time” while on vacation in that city. He explained that the Hurricane tattoo represented “just having a good time,” the open-mind-edness of the city, and his participation in a lifestyle he described as “people who enjoy being an alcoholic or a drunk,” a category in which he included himself.

Among our sample, individuals who harbored greater sentiment for a particular activity than allegiance to a particular company thought of their lifestyles in corporate terms. Although all of our brand-loyal respondents were heavily influenced by a reality constructed by corporations, we believe that those who used the logo to signify their participation in a par-ticular lifestyle most strongly suggest the hegemonic power of corporate symbols. The fact that some respondents do not “think of it as a corporate symbol” suggests the discursive power of marketing. In the next section, we analyze data from six respondents who endeavored to appropriate corporate logos and redefine them to signify something other than the meanings mar-keted by the corporations.




Appropriating the Logo

Six of our respondents said they used logos to convey meanings other than those intended by the corporations they represented and had expressed no “brand loyalty,” per se. Of our formal interviews, those respondents were RealLife, IBM, Crayola, Hershey Kiss, and both Louisville Sluggers. Use of logos to signify something other than their intended meaning may be more common among the population of individuals with such tattoos than our sample suggests. According to several tattoo artists we spoke to, many cli-ents request tattoos because they like the artistic style of the logo and not necessarily because of any specified “meaning” of the brand insignia.

Three themes emerged among those who wished to co-opt the logo to signify something other than that intended by the corporation. These included resistance to corporate loyalty, membership in a violent subcul-ture, and the simulacrum.

Corporate resistance. IBM (a pseudonym) had worked for a company with a strong corporate culture that demanded absolute loyalty from its employees. It was only after securing a job with another company that he acquired a tattoo of the IBM logo. He explained that getting the tattoo was a way of provoking his highly competitive coworkers, each of whom was concerned about demonstrating corporate loyalty. IBM explained that his tattoo “was sort of an in-your-face challenge to the real strutting monkeys in that organization: ‘Hey, I like [IBM] so much that I tattooed the logo on my arm. And by the way, I’m outta here.’” He got his tattoo as a form of rebellion against the “corporate types” because he was “frustrated with all the super-egos.” For him the tattoo was “more about the appearance of loyalty,” a way of telling his coworkers how ridiculous he thought their competitive, paranoid, hyper-loyal actions were. It was a way of creating paranoia in other employees by provoking them to think, “Whoa! Is he really more loyal than I am?” In a personal e-mail to his friends at the cor-poration, he stated, “I didn’t get that tattoo done as an act of loyalty or devotion to [the company] . . . . There is a real in-your-face element in what I’ve done. . . . The tattoo sort of symbolizes the question, ‘Who *really* gives a shit around here?’” In his interview, he explained that he did not hold hard feelings against the company but rather that the intended target of the tattoo was his coworkers, not the corporation itself. For IBM, his corporate tattoo represented “resistance” to corporate America.




Subcultural membership. Both Louisville Sluggers used their tattoos to express a rebellious identity and a “hard core” lifestyle that entailed involvement in the punk rock and independent music scene. early in his interview, Louisville Slugger #1 explained that he considered most of his tattoos to be representations of various groups to which he belonged. He said, “I’ve definitely always had a group mentality, a really tribal like . . . ‘I’m a member of this group.’” One of the groups to which he belonged considered the Louisville Slugger corporate logo to be repre-sentative of their tribal identity. For them, the logo signified violent imagery, important because of the sometimes rebellious and violent activi-ties in which the group engaged. He explained the “obvious reasons” why the Louisville Slugger was a good symbol for the group. He said,

Number one, it’s a baseball bat. . . . Number two, . . . you know, bludg-eoning people with baseball bats is, definitely, you know, is definitely an image. . . . That’s a pretty common thing, you know, beating somebody with a baseball bat. It’s pretty common imagery. . . . And number three, it’s a slugger. A slugger is a person who, you know, a boxer.

He further explained that the tattoo was more about “not being a victim” and a defensive imagery of violence rather than actually behaving violently. He continued, “I have a real tendency to portray myself as a lot more macho than I am.” Both Louisville Slugger respondents indicated that they felt their tattoos were rebellious toward “mainstream” culture and were about being “hard core” within the local punk scene.

The simulacrum. In contrast to Louisville Slugger and the other respond-ents in our sample, Crayola, Hershey Kiss, and RealLife’s logos were even further distant from the brand logos’ intended meaning. For instance, RealLife did not adhere to a lifestyle represented by either logo; he was not an avid milk drinker, nor has he had a subscription to Life magazine. His personal identity may have been expressed and self-reflexively formed through his tattoos, but if it was, it was based upon meanings he attributed to the logos, not those intended by the corporation or the magazine.

RealLife was an Andy Warhol fan and said, “He definitely taught me the power of the symbol.” RealLife explained that the key to understand-ing his tattoo was in the meaning of the words real and life when placed side by side. He said the two words together were “all encompassing” and “can mean just about anything.” RealLife said he was “playing with the




meaning” of signs and symbols and that although he believed that “reality is definitely a constantly shifting perspective,” he got the tattoo to remind him to “keep it real.” Similar to Ironman, RealLife said he never thought about the logos being corporate. Instead, he said, “The symbol now has my meaning. It isn’t related to the company.”

Similarly, Crayola had a colorful tattoo of the Crayola crayons box because she liked the artistic aspect of the design. She stated that her tattoo was not about “loyalty” to Crayola but about having an “artistic tattoo.” In a somewhat similar vein, Hershey Kiss said her tattoo meant something personal to her about being “kissable” and “sexy.” For the respondents in this section, the brand logo had entered the simulacrum, where the original significance of the tattoo was altered and transformed into their own per-sonal meanings. These tattoos are representations of the “real” brand logos but their meanings have been intentionally distorted. Baudrillard (1995) argues that the simulacrum is associated with the postmodern era where images are merely representations and “fakes” with no relation to any “real” meaning or reality. Thus, we theorize that the meanings of some corporate logo tattoos have entered the simulacrum.

Discussion: Agents or Dupes?

Our findings regarding the motivations and meanings of noncorporate logo tattoos provide mixed support for the literature. Specifically, while our respondents reported that they used tattoos to communicate something about their own identities and group affiliations to others, they did not believe most other people did so because they opted for “flash” art, usually on a whim. Our subjects felt strongly against the use of mass marketed tattoos, believing that the design should be carefully chosen and should mean something to its bearer. Furthermore, they thought that most people, but not themselves, got tattoos to be “cool” and that the perceived “cool-ness” of body art was directly related to its increased popularity and social acceptability. Finally, our respondents believed that others’ use of tattoos as an expression of rebellion was futile, particularly as such insignia had gained popularity. Nonetheless, many said that when they first acquired their tattoos, they did so as an act of rebellion. In order to express rebel-lion at the time we conducted the interviews, however, they believed that one needed to be heavily modified or to have tattoos on areas of the body deemed beyond socially accepted norms. One result was that several of our respondents were “taking it to the next level” by purchasing more tattoos




and/or having them placed on non-normative areas of the body. Non-logo tattoos, then, appear to have the potential to signify something about those who have them which the bearers consider to be an ontologically real aspect of self, community, or lifestyle. Although every person in our sample focused on his or her own agency in getting his or her tattoos, almost all of the respondents had something negative to say about individuals who get tattoos on a whim, particularly when purchasing “flash” art to be cool. Such individuals, our sample believed, had been duped into a type of faux rebellion.

Regarding corporate logo tattoos, our findings suggest that such body art is acquired primarily to express brand loyalty or to appropriate the logo into a simulated meaning. Beyond Adorno and Horkheimer’s (1976) argument that the culture industry appropriates mass culture, re-polishes it, and sells it back to shoppers, our findings suggest that corporate marketers have skillfully constructed a reality that includes individual and group identity, community, and lifestyle. Athletes, for example, no longer think of their accomplishments in terms of mental focus and physical endurance; instead, they are “Ironmen,” so steeped in the identity and lifestyle that they fail to think of their accomplishments in terms of crossing a finish line. Musicians and artists are “Mac guys” who “think different.” Scholars have long recog-nized the insidious ways that corporations influence culture. Our research demonstrates the way this corporate construction of reality has seeped its way into public consciousness and, indeed, for some, physical bodies, with identity, community, and lifestyle signified by corporate logos.

All of our respondents used corporate logos to convey meaning about themselves, their communities, or their lifestyles. Although most had reser-vations about why others get tattoos, all believed they were exercising personal autonomy and agency and that their tattoos represented something intrinsically real about themselves, their communities, and their lifestyles. On the whole, our brand-loyal respondents believed in what the corpora-tions stood for and lived “the advertised life” (Vanderbilt 1997) as repre-sented and marketed by corporations. As much as our brand-loyal respondents believed in the inherent superiority of the products, communi-ties, and lifestyles associated with the logos they had inscribed on their own bodies, most subjects had negative feelings about the corporate logo tattoos of others whose brands differed from their own. Many said they “didn’t understand” how corporations could create that much brand loyalty and that people who got them were “silly” and “ridiculous.” Harley #2, for example, explained, “I don’t see how anything else inspires the brand loyalty that a Harley does.” Just as our respondents thought that others got logo tattoos




because they had been duped into doing so, most could only understand why someone would get a tattoo of the brand(s) to which they were loyal. Thus, it appears that corporate logo tattoos signify membership in a con-sumer tribe in much the same way that being heavily tattooed communi-cates membership in a marginalized subculture. The difference is that the meanings behind logo tattoos were created by corporate marketers rather than representing something personal about the individual.

In contrast to the “advertised lives” of our brand-loyal respondents, those who attempted to appropriate the meaning of their logos were reacting to the commodification of everyday life by taking the signs and symbols presented by the culture industry and altering them to fit their own meanings. We con-sider that these respondents were engaging in an exercise of personal auton-omy, but we believe their exercise of power to be a form of pseudo-rebellion or pseudo-resistance. In essence, their rebellion is futile because they have chosen to resist the commodification of society by exercising power within in the symbolic discourse created by the industry itself. To resist the com-modification of culture, we believe one must step outside the discourse of consumer capitalism, and while the logos may be simulated versions of the “real” thing, they are still representative of consumer culture.

Significantly, most of our respondents did not see their acquisition of non-logo or logo tattoos as part of this process, instead seeing themselves outside the process of commodification. Similarly, they believed that others’ use of tattoos as expressions of rebellion was, for the most part futile, primarily because their moderate displays had become so popular. In other words, tat-toos were a sign of rebellion and deviance before they became an accepted part of mainstream society. Since being commodified, however, their utility as an act of resistance had become limited. Still, our respondents believed that they could signify their rebellion by purchasing more and more tattoos. We see this as another part of the larger culture industry’s creation of “rebel con-sumers,” who believe they are mocking the dominant culture while at the same time conforming to emergent norms of self-expression promoted by the tattoo industry.

Our findings on corporate logo tattoos provide strong support for the argument that tattoos are symbolic of the commodification of the body and fail to provide support for the argument that they are effective symbols of resistance. Specifically, the majority of our respondents acquired their corporate logo tattoos as an act of brand loyalty, to signify an identity and identification with the lifestyle associated with the brand, and to symbolize membership in a group affiliated with it. It appears that most of our respondents had moved beyond living “the advertised life” (Vanderbilt




1997) as their bodies became what we conceptualize as “human billboards” for corporations and brand name products.

These findings suggest that the commodification of culture vis-à-vis tat-toos has moved beyond the mass marketing of flash body art. It appears that the culture industry has appropriated tattooing as means of “branding” con-sumers with logos that signify extreme brand loyalty. Those with corporate logo tattoos appear to have internalized the meanings created by corpora-tions, believing that they really have the attributes suggested by the brand and that they live the lifestyle signified by the brand. In this way, corporate logo tattoos signify the commodification of lifestyle and identity, or what we term “pseudo-lifestyle” and “pseudo-identity.” Moreover, they serve as visible markers of group affiliation. Unlike tattoos among traditional societies, how-ever, logo tattoos signify membership in consumer tribes (Maffesoli 1996) that have been socially constructed by corporations. Finally, these tattoos have resulted in the commodification of the body in that corporations have appropriated people to serve as “human billboards.” These billboards not only provide free advertising but also create a “next level” in brand loyalty, suggesting, for example, that those with logo tattoos have more “mystique,” “think more different,” or are more serious about the product and its lifestyle. The result is “pseudo-individualism,” resulting from the culture industry’s ideology, which promotes individualism, non-conformity, and self-expression through the use of name brands (Frank 1997, 232). even as brand names are inscribed onto the body to affect an individual air, this pseudo-individuality serves to reinforce the ideology of the culture industry, just as Adorno and Horkheimer (1976) warned it would.

In a commodified society, tattoos are purchased to signify identity, group membership, coolness, and rebellion. The fact that signifiers of identities and group membership are for sale gives their purchasers a form of power in that they can choose whether or not to have such insignia inscribed onto their bodies. Yet while tattoo consumers may be expressing their agency in society by purchasing what they like and want, the symbols they consume were created by the culture industry to support the discourse and institu-tion of industrial capitalism. Thus, we believe the power exercised by tat-too consumers is pseudo-power, despite the fact that our respondents truly believed they were exerting real power. Furthermore, when our respondents attempted to appropriate the corporate-created meaning of their logo tat-toos, they were, for the most part, unsuccessful, specifically because the insignia—absent a verbal explanation from its bearer—was likely to be interpreted in the discourse of corporate capitalism. As part of the simu-lacrum, then, symbols need not refer to their original referents, but absent a




wide-spread, organized exercise of power, corporate logo tattoos are likely to be interpreted as free advertising, rather than resistance. Foucault (1978) appears to have been correct in asserting that “where there is power, there is resistance,” but in this case, it appears that resistance was futile because of the power of corporate capitalism to market tattoos as a form of rebellion and to define the meaning of body art, corporate logos, and the combination of the two. Rebellion against any discursive system, it appears, must come from outside. Individual efforts to appropriate or co-opt corporate symbols are, we believe, doomed to failure.

Conclusion

Theoretically, our data suggest that tattoos have been commodified in mainstream society in that they are consumed as a commodity in what Atkinson (2003) calls the “supermarket era” of tattooing. Furthermore, the increasing popularity of corporate logo tattoos appears to reinforce the proc-ess of the commodification of society vis-à-vis lifestyle, identity, group membership, and the body. From a postmodern perspective, the commodifi-cation of society is a reaction to social fragmentation. Specifically, as indi-vidual identities develop and people are influenced by the commodification of everyday life, they learn that they can purchase cultural products that will give them a certain appearance, lifestyle, and identity and provide them entré into certain consumer tribes. Individuals who acquire corporate logo tattoos to express brand loyalty, adherence to a particular lifestyle, identity, or mem-bership in a particular group may believe they are exercising power. It must be noted, however, that this power is created by the culture industry and sup-ported by corporate capitalism. As such we believe that consumers of corpo-rate logo tattoos use these body modifications as an expression of pseudo-power and pseudo-resistance because the identities, lifestyles, and groups they wish to signify are pseudo-products of an industry that has appropriated human bodies as uncompensated billboards. The extensive power of the culture industry means that even efforts to resist it by appropriating corporate mean-ings have been, and are likely to continue to be, futile.

The major limitations of this study are related to our sample size and the homogeneous nature of our sample. Although we made concerted efforts to recruit and interview more women and people of color, our attempts met with failure. While there has been a substantial increase in literature regard-ing tattoos among women (Atkinson 2003; Braunberger 2000; Forbis 1994; Kang and Jones 2007), there is a surprising lack of research regarding the




prevalence of tattoos among racial and ethnic minorities. Furthermore, no random survey data exist on the prevalence of corporate logo tattoos by race, ethnicity, or gender. Thus, further research is needed to ascertain whether and to what degree women and people of color acquire corporate logo tattoos as well as the meanings they ascribe to such body art and their motivations for acquiring them.

Furthermore, our research has contributed to understandings of those who are motivated by a desire to appropriate and alter the meanings of the logos they acquire. Nonetheless, further research is needed on the degree to which their efforts are successful. Can individual efforts to appropriate and redefine the meanings established by the culture industry succeed or are intended meanings “culturally written over by the larger society” (Kang and Jones 2007, 44)? A clearer understanding of successful efforts to resist the power of the culture industry would inform theoretical understandings of the power of corporate capitalism to commodify culture, communities, indi-viduals, and bodies as well as potential strategies in subverting such power.

Note

1. To protect the confidentiality of two subjects, we changed the names of their corporate logos because we were unable to document at least one other person having one like it. Those were a New Orleans bar we have renamed the Cat’s Meow and a technology corporation for which we have substituted the IBM logo. The individual with the RealLife tattoo wished to forego confidentiality, preferring us to use the real tattoo in our presentations and publications.

References

Adorno, Theodor, and Max Horkheimer. 1976. Dialect of enlightenment. Trans. John Cumming. New York: Continuum.

Arksey, Hilary, and Peter Knight. Interviewing for social scientists: An introductory resource with examples. London: Sage.

Atkinson, Michael. 2003. Tattooed: The sociogenesis of a body art. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

Austin, Mark, Patricia Gagné, and Angela Orend. Forthcoming. Motorcyclists: A critical theo-retical analysis of the commodification of riding. The Journal of Popular Culture.

Bakhtin, Mikhail. 1968. Rabelais and his world. Boston: MIT Press.Barber, Benjamin R. 2007. Consumed: How markets corrupt children, infantalize adults, and

swallow citizens whole. New York: Norton.Baudrillard, Jean. 1995. Simulacrum and simulation. Trans. Sheila Glaser. London: UMP.Baudrillard, Jean.1996. The system of objects. Trans. James Benedict. New York: Verso.Baudrillard, Jean. 1998. The consumer society: Myths and structures. Trans. Chris Turner.

London: Sage.




Bauer, eric. 2002. The (trans)formation of image: Symbolic consumption, self, and society. Master’s thesis, Florida Atlantic Univ.

Bordo, Susan. 1993a. Material girl: The effacements of postmodern culture. In Negotiating at the margins: The GENDERED DISCOURSES OF POWER AND RESISTANCE, ed. Sue Fisher and Kathy Davis, 295-316. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers.

Bordo, Susan. 1993b. Unbearable weight: Feminism, Western culture and the body. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Bradberry, Grace. 1997. Branded for life. The Times, November 20, F1.Braunberger, Christine. 2000. Revolting bodies: The monster beauty of tattooed women.

NWSA Journal 12:1-23.Butler, Judith. 1993. Bodies that matter. London: Routledge.Campbell, Colin. 1989. The romantic ethic and the spirit of modern consumerism. Oxford,

UK: Basil Blackwell.Chapkis, Wendy. 1986. Beauty secrets: Women and the politics of appearance. Boston: South

end.Charmaz, Kathy. 1983. The grounded theory method: An explication and interpretation. In

Contemporary field research: A collection of readings, ed. Robert emerson, 109-28. Boston: Little, Brown.

Collins, Patricia Hill. 2000. Black feminist thought. New York: Routledge.Corrigan, Peter. 1997. The sociology of consumption. London: Sage.Crossley, Nick. 2001. The social body: Habit, identity and desire. London: Sage.Davis, Kathy. 1995. Reshaping the female body: The dilemma of cosmetic surgery. New York:

Routledge.DeBord, Guy. 1995. The society of the spectacle. Trans. Donald Nicholson-Smith. New York:

Zone Books.DeMello, Margo. 2000. Bodies inscription. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.Donovan, Lauren. 1997. Wearing their art. Bismarck Tribune, November 16, 1C.Douglas, Mary. 1966. Purity and danger. New York: Praeger.Douglas, Mary, and Baron Isherwood. 1979. The world of goods: Towards an anthropology of

consumption. London. Routledge.eisner, elliot. 1991. The enlightened eye: Qualitative inquiry and the enhancement of educa-

tional practice. New York: Macmillan.ewen, Stuart. 1976. Captains of consciousness: Advertising and the social roots of consumer

culture. New York: McGraw-Hill.Falk, Pasi. 1994. The consuming body. London: Routledge.Featherstone, Mike. 1991a. The body in consumer culture. In The body: Social process and

cultural theory, ed. Mike Featherstone, Mike Hepworth, and Bryan Turner, 170-96. London: Sage.

Featherstone, Mike. 1991b. Consumer culture and postmodernism. London: Sage.Featherstone, Mike. 1999. Body modification: An introduction. Body and Society 5 (2-3): 1-13.Fiske, John. 1989. Reading the popular. London: Routledge.Forbis, Melissa. 1994. This is my body: gender, tattooing, and resistance in the United States.

Master’s thesis, Temple Univ.Foster, Gary, and Richard Hummel. 2000. The commodification of body modification: Tattoos

and piercings from counterculture to campus. http://www.lsus.edu/la/journals/ideology/ contents/vol25/tattoos.pdf (accessed March 26, 2003)




Foucault, Michel. 1978. The history of sexuality: Volume 1, An introduction. New York: Vintage.

Foucault, Michel. 1986. Nietzsche, genealogy, history. In The Foucault reader, 76-100. New York: Pantheon.

Foucault, Michel. 1995. Discipline and punish: The birth of the prison. Trans. Alan Sheridan. New York: Vintage.

Frank, Arthur. 1991. For a sociology of the body: An analytical resource. In The body: Social process and cultural theory, ed. Mike Featherstone, Mike Hepworth, and Bryan Turner, 36-102. London: Sage.

Frank, Thomas. 1997. Conquest of cool. Chicago: University of Chicago.Gagné, Pat, and Deanna McGaughey. 2002. Designing women: embodiment, elective mam-

moplasty, and the masculine gaze. Gender & Society, 16(6): 814-838.Giddens, Anthony. 1991. Modernity and self-identity. Cambridge, UK: Polity.Goldman, Robert, and Stephen Papson. 1996. Sign wars. New York: Guilford.Gottdiener, Mark. 2000. New forms of consumption: Consumers, culture, and commodifica-

tion. New York: Rowman and Littlefield.Govenar, Alan. 2000. The changing image of tattooing in American culture, 1846-1966. In

Written on the body, ed. Jane Caplan, 212-33. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Gramsci, Antonio. 1971. Selections from the prison notebooks. London: Lawrence and

Wishart.hooks, bell. 1992. Selling hot pussy: Representations of black female sexuality in the cultural

marketplace. In Black looks: Race and representation, ed. Katie Conboy, Nadia Medina, and Sarah Stanbury, 113-28. Boston: South end.

Jameson, Frederic. 1991. Postmodernism, or the cultural logic of late capitalism. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.

Kang, Miliann, and Katherine Jones. 2007. Why do people get tattoos? Contexts 6 (1): 47-47.

Kleese, Christian. 1999. Modern primitivism: Non-mainstream body modification and racial-ized Representation. Body and Society 5 (2-3): 15-38.

Klein, Naomi. 1999. No logo. New York: Picador USA.Lash, Scott, and John Urry. 1994. Economies of sign and space. London: Sage.Levins, Hoag. 1998. The changing status of tattoo art. http://www.tattooartist.com/history.html

(accessed April 5, 2002).Lincoln, Yvonna, and egon Guba. 1985. Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Lofland, John, and Lyn Lofland. 1984. Analyzing social settings: A guide to qualitative obser-

vation and analysis. 2nd ed. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.Maffesoli, Michel. 1996. The time of the tribes: The decline of individualism in mass society.

London: Sage.McCracken, Grant. 1988. Culture and consumption: New approaches to the symbolic charac-

ter of consumer goods and activities. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Mulvey, Laura. 1989. Visual pleasures and narrative cinema. Bloomington: Indiana University

Press.Orend, Angela. 2003. Corporate logo tattoos: Literal corporate branding? Consumers,

Commodities and Consumption, 5(1): 1-6. Otnes, Per. 1988. The sociology of consumption: An anthology. Atlantic Highlands, NJ:

Humanities Press.




Patton, Michael Quinn. 1990. Qualitative evaluation and research methods. 2nd ed. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Peters, Tom. 1997. The brand called you. Fast Company 10 (August): 83.Polhemus, Ted, and Lynn Proctor. 1978. Fashion and anti-fashion. London: Thames and

Hudson.Re/Search. 1999. http://www.researchpubs.com/books/primprod.shtml (accessed April 5,

2004).Ritzer, George. 1999. The sociology of consumption: A sub-field in search of discovery.

Consumers, Commodities, and Consumption 1:1.Root, Deborah. 1996. Cannibal culture: Art, appropriation, and the commodification of differ-

ence. Boulder, CO: Westview.Rosenblatt, Daniel. 1997. The antisocial skin: Structure, resistance and modern primitive

adornment in the United States. Cultural Anthropology 12:287-334.Rubin, Arnold. 1988. The tattoo renaissance. In Marks of civilization, ed. Arnold Rubin,

233-64. Los Angeles: University of California.Sanders, Clinton. 1988. Marks of mischief: Becoming and being tattooed. Journal of

Contemporary Ethnography 16 (4): 395-432.Scheper-Hughes, Nancy, and Loïc Wacquant. 2002. Commodifying bodies. London: Sage.Schor, Juliet, and Douglass Holt. 2000. The consumer society reader. New York: New Press.Scott, Sue David Morgan. 1993. Body matters. London: Falmer.Sever, Joy Marie. 2003. A third of Americans with tattoos say they make them feel more sexy.

The Harris Poll. http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=407 (accessed October 8, 2003).

Sheldon, Jamie, Cooley Godward, LLP, and Mary DeLongis. 2001. Tattoo you—With a trade-mark. International Trademark Association Bulletin Archive. http://www.inta.org/index .php?option=com_contentandtask=viewandid=216andItemid=126andgetcontent=1 (accessed October 8, 2003).

Shields, Rob. 1992. Lifestyle shopping: The subject of consumption. London: Routledge.Shilling, Chris. 1993. The body and social theory. 2nd ed. London: Sage.Slater, Don. 1997. Consumer culture and modernity. London: Polity.Smelser, Neil. 1976. Comparative methods in the social sciences. englewood Cliffs, NJ:

Prentice Hall.Strauss, Anslem, and Juliet Corbin. 1990. Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory

procedures and techniques. London: Sage.Sweetman, Paul. 1999. Anchoring the (postmodern) self? Body modification, fashion, and

identity. Body and Society 5 (2-3): 51-76.Synott, Anthony. 1993. The body social: Symbolism, self, and society. London: Routledge.Travis, Daryl. 2000. Emotional branding: How successful brands gain the irrational edge. Los

Angeles: Prima.Turner, Bryan. 1992. Regulating bodies: Essays in medical sociology. London: Routledge.Turner, Byran. 1996. The Body and Society. 2nd ed. London: Sage.Turner, Byran. 1997. Body marks: Neo-tribalism in cool societies. Keynote address at the

Body Modification Conference for Theory, Culture, and Society, Nottingham, UK.Turner, Byran. 1999. The possibility of primitiveness: Towards a sociology of body marks in

cool societies. Body and Society 5 (2-3): 39-50.Twitchell, James. 1999. Lead us into temptation: The triumph of American materialism. New

York: Columbia University Press.




Vail, Donald Angus. 2000. The tattoos we deserve: Producing culture and constructing elitism. PhD diss., Univ. of Connecticut.

Vale, Vivian, and Andrea Juno. 1989. Modern primitives. An investigation of contemporary adornment and ritual. San Francisco: Re/Search.

Vanderbilt, Tom. 1997. The advertised life. In Commodify your dissent, ed. Thomas Frank and Matt Weiland, 127-42. New York: Norton.

Veblen, Thorstein. 1994. The theory of the leisure class: An economic study of institutions. New York: Macmillan.

Velliquette, Anne, and Jeff Murray. 1999. The new tattoo subculture. In Mapping the social landscape: Readings in sociology, ed. Susan Ferguson, 68-81. Mountain View, CA: Mayfield.

Werner, Oswald, and Mark Schoepfle. 1987. Systematic fieldwork. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Williams, Simon, and Gillia Bendelow. 1999. The lived body: Sociological themes, embodied

issues. London: Routledge.

Angela Orend is a Visiting Lecturer in the Department of Sociology at the University of Louisville where she teaches sociological theory and a course on diversity and inequality. Her research focuses on issues of commodificaton with respect to the body and popular culture. Her theoretical interests place a particular emphasis on forms of postmodern consumption.

Patricia Gagné is an Associate Professor in the Department of Sociology at the University of Louisville, where she teaches undergraduate and graduate courses in sociological theory. Her research focuses on gender, the body, and the commodification of popular culture.




Journal of Contemporary Ethnography 2009 Orend 493 517

Documents

Transcript of Journal of Contemporary Ethnography 2009 Orend 493 517