Tattoos and Piercings in the Workplace

[EnderD_503]

Originally Posted by JustJo

Interesting points EnderD...

For me, I find that I would question the competence, success, ability or attitude of a CPA or doctor in ripped jeans and flip flops. Maybe it's not right or fair, but it's there. And, in a weird way....I would take their attire as being disrespectful of me, and of the professional relationship we are sharing.

Hi Jo,

I'm not particularly worried about whether it is right or fair as the terms are pretty subjective, but what I am curious about is the logic behind the notion and how it resonates with similar beliefs regarding different groups in the past and present; whether it is something that truly speaks of an individual's "professionalism" (better defined by behaviour and achievement rather than dress) or if it is something engrained. And if it is something engrained, then where does it stem from and what is its purpose? I can understand questioning the attitude of a doctor who dresses in such a manner, but what I don't understand is questioning his/her competence, success (which can be ascertained by inquiring into their work history, if it truly is an issue) and ability. He/she may not be concerned with with what you think of his flip flops and ripped jeans, but, rather, in the manner by which he/she is able to help you (far more important, in my opinion).

Furthermore, how do we address what is and isn't professional to each individual, and how do we address the individual's desire to dress in such a manner that suits his/her own identity (if we are going to respect a person's identity at all in the workplace)? I want to go back to the example of gender and religious issues in the workplace that I gave earlier on. It also raises the question on whether a person should be allowed to wear religious clothing in the workplace (assuming it does not become a safety issue). Slavoj Zizek touched a little on this issue during his discussion on the issue of whether or not to ban burqas in France, and while the discussion may seem, initially, removed from our current discussion, I do believe it is helpful to the discussion.

"It is, however, not enough to submit this law to pragmatic criticism, such as the claim that, if implemented, it will only increase the oppression of Muslim women, since they will simply not be allowed to leave home and thus be even more cut off from societ, exposed to harsh treatment within forced marriages, etc. (Furthermore, the fine will exacerabte the problems of poverty and joblessness: it will punish the very women who are least likely to have control over their own money.) ... The next curious feature is the ambiguity of the critique of the burqa: it moves at two levels. First, it is presented as a defense of the dignity and freedom of oppressed Muslim women - it is unacceptable that, in a secular Frence, any woman has to live a hidden life secluded from public space, subordinated to brutal patriarchal authority, and so on. Secondly, however, as a rule the argument then shifts towards the anxieties of non-Muslim French people: faces covered by the burqa do not fit with the coordinates of French culture and identity, they 'intimidate and alienate non-Muslims' ... Some French women have even suggested that they perceived the wearing of a burqa as their own humiliation, as being brutally excluded, rejected from a social link."

I added the italics to "intimidate" and "alienate" because that is primarily where the passage correlates with our discussion. How far do we go in assuring that no one is intimidated, alienated or disrespected in a professional or public relationship, and how much control can we have over the issue when we have little control over what causes the feeling of intimidation, alienation and disrespect? On the one hand you have French women who feel intimidated and alienated/excluded an rejected, and on the other hand you have Muslim women who may or may not be forced into wearing a burqa for religious reasons. French society translates this as blatant disregard for the rights of women in France, while French women see it as humiliating even for themselves who are not the ones wearing the burqa. Both sides might be accused of "backward" conservatism and intolerance, yet simultaneously of representing freedom of the individual.

A person may just as well be intimidated or feel disrespected by the presence of a butch dressed in traditionally male clothing, as they might feel disrespected by a doctor in flip flops and ripped jeans. How far do we go in limiting freedom of dress in the workplace in a Western society that preaches tolerance and equality among all people?

Originally Posted by JustJo

Maybe that sounds odd....but it would be like someone showing up for a first date in ripped jeans and flip flops. It's saying "I don't choose to make an effort to appear at my best for you"...or maybe "my own comfort is more important to me than anything else"...or maybe this is all just my own stuff.

And what if that individual in said ripped jeans and flip flops proceeds with the utmost courtesy, engages you in lively and thought-provoking conversation, listens intently to all you have to say and overall comports themselves in an extremely thoughtful and pleasant manner. Have they not chosen to respect you (and I don't mean you specifically, but a general "you") in believing you capable of judging them on their actions and words rather than appearance? Is it not possible to understand such an action as a sign of respect in that they feel no need to paint themselves as something they are not? In a way it can be interpreted as an expression of faith in you.

Originally Posted by JustJo

Clothing has always been used, not just to cover ourselves, but to announce who we are to the world...our status, our preferences, our own individual style, or the groups we belong to. For me, tattoos and piercings do some of the same thing. As ravfem pointed out...the blatantly racist or sexist tattoos make a clear statement about group affiliation and beliefs...and can/are/might be used to purposely intimidate or make someone uncomfortable.

I agree on your first point, however, I have a few qualms with the second point. I think that the subject you bring up here is actually somewhat seperate from the rest of the discussion and maybe threatens to derail the thread? I hesitate to address it unless Sassy doesn't mind. I think I may have derailed her thread enough as it is.

Originally Posted by JustJo

It starts to be a question of what kind and how much though. I'm thinking of the "lizard man" who lives in our area, who has done everything he can possibly do with tattoos and piercings and implants to look as lizard-like as possible. For me, that's an intentional statement (and yes, an extreme case). I don't want to go to him for medical care or financial advice. Might not be fair...but it's reality...and I'm guessing he knew it when he made those choices too.

The "reality" of it is actually a part of my question. Why is this reality? I am often told that such and such a thing is simply "reality," yet if we look at how the world has changed from one reality to another, it is because people are willing to analyse and actively change a reality they do not agree with that we are where we are to begin with.

Actually, Zizek offers some insight on that subject as well in his discussion of the burqa...not sure if it applies, but see what you think of it anyway.

"This brings us to the true enigma here: why does the encounter with a face covered by a burqa trigger such anxiety? Is it that a face so covered is no longer the Levinasian face: that Otherness from which the unconditional ethical call emanates? But what if the opposite is the case? From a Freudian perspective, the face is the ultimate mask that conceals the horror of the Neighbor-Thing: the face is what makes the Neighbor le semblable, a fellow-man with whom we can identify and empathize. (Not to mention the fact that, today, many faces are surgically modified and thus deprived of the last vestiges of natural authenticity.) This, then, is why the covered face causes such anxiety: because it confronts us directly with the abyss of the Other-Thing, with the Neighbor in its uncanny dimension. The very covering-up of the face [arguably equally applicable in the case of the tattooed face of the "lizard man."] obliterates a protective shield, so that the Other-Thing stares at us directly."

Both Zizek quotes can be found on page 2 of his Living In the End Times (second page of his first chapter, Denial: The Liberal Utopia).

Originally Posted by JustJo

On the far less extreme "average" piercings and tattoos...it's still my choice as a business owner to decide how to present my business to the public. I may intentionally want to project an atmosphere and image of staid conservatism....and lots of pierced, tattooed, flip flop wearing employees aren't going to do that.

I agree that you have that choice, yes.

Originally Posted by JustJo

Employers can get mired in the "how much/where/what kind" debate - and open themselves up to discrimination lawsuits if they say "tattoos of flowers and dolphins are fine, but images of skulls and spiders aren't." Most opt for the simpler "no visible tattoos" policy because it is more easily interpreted fairly.

I think that soon many employers (particularly of large companies) are going to be "forced" to change these policies due to the rise of...well...my generation Many employers have already changed such conservative policies. Even the academic sphere and "image" itself is changing, because more and more you have brilliant undergraduates eventually getting their Masters, getting their doctorates and all the while doing so in full sleeves and foot tall mohawks (should have seen the last T.A. I had...I'm pretty sure I could have put my fist through his earlobe lol). "Oddly" enough, in my experience most of those who have appeared "other than the norm" in my university courses have been among the most dedicated to their area of study. Some of the best professors I've ever had have come to class looking like they just rolled out of bed...and proceeded to give some of the most amazing lectures I've ever attended. Maybe they were disrespecting me, maybe they had immense respect for me and my fellow students or maybe it has nothing to do with respect or disrespect.

[JustJo]

Hi EnderD,

I'm having a stressed out brain-dead couple of days, so please forgive in advance...

I totally get what you're saying about the dedicated and inspiring professors, and also that considerate and thoughtful date who also happens to show up in flip-flops and torn jeans. I guess the difference is that of first impression vs. known entity. If I show up in the ER on the verge of a diabetic coma, it's true that I want the most capable doctors and nurses regardless of their appearance. It's also true that I don't have the opportunity to learn of their background or training...and much of my first impression is going to be based on appearances and presentation. I'll have more confidence in those that look "professional" - at least until I have a direct experience of their ability.

Your question about religious clothing is different to me. For me, someone who is presenting themselves in alignment with the traditions of their faith or culture is very different from someone presenting as "counter-culture" ...sorry, can't find a good word to express that thought today. I'm in NY, and encounter Amish folks and ultra-orthodox Jews on a regular basis. Both groups dress and present themselves in ways that aren't "normal" according to the larger culture but are perfectly correct within their own group...and to me.

And...back to that date in the torn jeans...my first impression may be negative, but that doesn't mean it won't change with actual experience of that person.

I know I haven't responded to all of your points...and I'll be back once my brain is re-installed.