In her essay “Tracking the Vampire,” Sue Ellen case asserts there is a “shared identification between monster and woman in representation: since they both share the status of object, they have a special empathy between them”(390). In portraying women and monsters as perceived threats to the masculine, and thus property man strives for rigid control over, neither position seems advantageous to the other. Nevertheless, Braunberger evokes the term “monster beauty” with a clear positive connotation in her essay “Revolting Bodies: The Monster Beauty of Tattooed Women. Though Braunberger never explicitly defines “monster beauty,” the context in which the term is used roots it in the physical difference generated as women tattoo themselves, breaking away from the patriarchal expectation of women to maintain pure, inkless skin. Beginning with a bit of background on different types of feminist discourse, Braunberger alleges that “women need to be able to make the double move of decolonizing the ‘fashion-beauty complex’ from our minds, while allowing for the joy and exploration in the body play of masquerade and performance” and positions women tattooing themselves as a practice that accomplishes this aim by altering body aesthetics and thus generating monster beauty (2). In a world in which women are willing to shell out hundreds of dollars for skin treatments, hair coloring, and a whole host of cosmetic nips and tucks in order to conform to masculine standards of beauty, and, in effect, make them attractive to males, it is hard to imagine why anyone would want to be viewed as monstrous by these traditional standards. Though the standards of beauty have altered throughout time – I’m our ancestors would be shocked that women of today’s day and age pay to have their skin artificially tanned- for hundreds of years there have been expectations for women’s physical appearances that the majority of women have striven to uphold. Nevertheless, Braunberger reveals that throughout history women have been attracted to tattoos, giving her concept of monster beauty a timeless quality. At first glance, the idea of monster beauty may appear to be invested in shock value, a tactic often associated, though frequently unjustly, with the feminist movement. However, the choice of women to make themselves “monstrous” to the male gaze is much more complicated.
First and foremost, Braunberger illustrates that tattooing is an avenue for women to express themselves, and, in doing so, take ownership over their own bodies. The particular power of the tattoo in such efforts resides in a few key characteristics of this particular bodily alteration. The use of the skin as the canvas on which such difference is generated becomes particularly meaningful, as this barrier between the outer and inner self is loaded symbolically, allowing tattoos to become a sight of introjection, which Braunberger describes as a opening “a mediating sight between one’s physic interior and cultural exterior”(3). Thus, tattoos become the external manifestation of one’s internalization of the cultural meanings and definitions forced onto their bodies and selves, or a manner in which women can artistically represent how patriarchy affects them personally. This symbolic significance makes women’s acts of defining their own bodies through the active acquisition of a tattoo, which can rightfully be interpreted as an act of taking ownership of their bodies, particularly powerful. The fact that women, in many cases, still do not feel a sense of ownership over their bodies in today’s day and age can paradoxically be seen through the lens of tattooing. The relative modern trend of “property of” tattoos amongst women and many women’s sole view of tattoos as an offense to a husband or boyfriend are two illustrations of this sad reality to which Braunberger gestures.
The monster beauty that is generated from tattooing is also clearly tied to the pleasure of women. Tattoos allow women to garner pleasure not only from the self expression and exertion of ownership they can facilitate, but through the subversion of social norms and redefining of feminine beauty associated with this sort of transformation. Foucault reveals the potential for pleasure through the transgression of norms by asserting there is pleasure to be gained through the rejection of dominant power systems. The refusal to conform to masculine standards of feminine beauty, a powerful arm of patriarchy, certainly fits this bill. The enormity of this subversion is evidenced by Braunberger’s revelation that tattooing is a domain which has fostered discourse about the difference of the male and female gaze, which Case also briefly touches on in her article. Braunberger points out: Operating on social margins, the tattooed woman and the protestor are read as excessively sexual while the pageant contestants on center stage operate within acceptable sexual parameters. At the same time, for the protestors it is those in the beauty pageant who are excessively sexualized”(14). Thus, tattooing becomes a manner in which women can appeal to the woman’s gaze, allowing beauty to be defined by self or from a sexual perspective outside of the heterosexual confines of patriarchy.
So why would woman want to be a monster? Under the framework Braunberger provides, such an inversion provides the woman with both power, pleasure (which partially derives from power), and an opportunity to be viewed as beautiful outside of the confines of the male gaze. I’m not entirely sure that I can define monster beauty in all its complexity, but I am willing to give it my best shot.
Monster beauty: the pleasure and unique physical aesthetic derived from attempts of woman to claim ownership over her body through self expression and transgression of patriarchal standards of beauty.
- Tracy
Works Cited
Braunberger, Christine. "Revolting Bodies: The Monster Beauty of Tattooed Women."
Feminist Formations, Volume 12, Number 2, 1-23. Summer 2000. Print.
Case, Sure Ellen. "Tracking the Vampire." writing on the body. 1997. Print.
No comments:
Post a Comment