The world exists to be seen, so see it. Dive heart first into every person you meet, love so hard that it hurts, and love everything you see, because it is all just like you; a part of the universe, ever changing and ever growing. You have more in common with the rocks in your garden than you think you do. Thank them for keeping the beetles safe, and thank the beetle for waiting with you when you forget your keys last week.
I have been thinking lots about scarification (or cicatrisation) as of late, I think prompted by seeing a very cool body modification conference that had a few scarification seminars and involved some really skilled artists. I hold a very deep appreciation for this art form and its (super far reaching!) roots.
Scarification is really deeply ingrained into so many different cultures worldwide. Sometimes it's done as art, sometimes as a right-of-passage or commemoration of an event, sometimes ritualistically, and sometimes as a sort of test of one's strength. It's been dated back to about 2000bce. Here in Australia, it was fairly common among Aboriginal groups. Some groups in Arnhem land still practice, and call it bolitj. There, its done by cutting and burning lines into parts of the body, marking the skin, and by extentsion the person. As far as I know, this group does it as a sort of coming of age ritual.
It was also practiced in parts of Africa, Amazonia, Asia, and some island nations. Scarification was often chosen over tattoo in groups with darker skin, presumably because natural pigments didn't show up too well. There were a few ways of doing it, namely cutting and burning. Sometimes cuts would be packed with ash or clay to encourage raised healing or keloiding, or discolouration of the resulting scar tissue.
In the modern day, there are three main ways that artists will go about creating a scar; cutting, strike branding, and electrocautery. Strike branding uses a heated piece of metal to press a desgin into the skin all at once, while electrocautery uses a hot electrical tool to draw burns onto the skin. Sometimes the scars are redone multiple times to get the desired effect. Occasionally cuts will be rubbed with ink, giving them colour and making them kind of look like tattoos. They are still different to tattoos though, as the skin will heal with a different texture!
Some argue that modern scarification is appropriation of those old cultural practices, some say it is appreciation, some think it is entirely its own thing and has no relation to any older traditions. I think this last group is wrong. Scarification can be either (or both) appreciation, and appropriation, depending on the person performing, the person receiving, the desin being done, and the setting in which it is done. For some, it's nothing more than means to an aesthetic end, a stone along the path of creating the body they want. This is a completely and totally valid reason in my eyes, but it's where a lot of people will claim appropriation, because yeah, it kind of is. This view doesn't always put the experience itself in focus.
The alternative to this is the kind of scarification done as a modern day ritual, for lack of a better phrase. Creating a scar for the sake of the creation, still often valuing the look, but also valuing the pain or the healing or the transformation or some other piece of the process. I've heard people equate this this self harm/mutilation in the past, and sure, in some cases it can be, but I think there is more nuance to it than that. To have an intentional scar, one must undergo intentional pain, so by the most dumbed down definition of self inflicted harm, sure. I see it as no different to being at the gym. I could make an unfunny joke about 'no pain no gain', but I will refrain. Both scarification and exercise connect a person to their body, forcing them to be aware of it and its needs in order to reach some sort of goal. Both will cause someone pain or discomfort. Some also view their scarification as healing, or transitional in a way, as many do with their fitness or strength journeys; One person before, caring for themself, then a new person after.
All in all, beautiful artwork, beautiful history, beautiful practice, and I promise that some day I will write more in depth about more aspects of it. Just a little taster today. My favourite artists at the moment are Kevin Jump and Marita Wikstrøm Svěrák.
All people engage in body modification practices to some degree. Some are on the more socially acceptable side - using a whitening toothpaste, dying hair, getting cosmetic injections - and some are more 'extreme', like getting tattooed, or having piercings, or subdermal implants. The body as a vessel, its comfort, and its inherent signalling of who the inhabitant is, all drive people to take control of and change it, better suiting one's needs and wants.
Life-long body projects, as I see them, are the forever ongoing, forever maintained, aspects of body modification. Things like working out or keeping fit, shaving or trimming or removing body hair, manicures, tanning, and anything else that changes one's appearance while requiring frequent upkeep. Often people think of women having more things expected of them in this regard. Some have used this as a critique of society, claiming women are seen as 'less desirable' if they do not partake. While this is true, and women are often shamed or discredited for lack of participation, they are far from the only ones to be. Everyone is expected to have something going on, even if it is as simple as a haircut every six months. To not alter the body is strange in today's world, so why does it become strange to alter it severely? There is a window of acceptability in society, as far as body modification goes, like there are with many other parts of life.
I was talking to a friend of mine about this the other day after seeing a book sort of related to this whole idea that I've put together. His thoughts (through my lens and with my words) were that while women are typically expected to do more than other genders to keep within this window of acceptability, there is no harm in it. In fact, it is good to expect this from women. To keep well tidied and decent is the most basic of basic expectations, for all genders. There is no reason why someone shouldn't be encouraged to make themselves look good. I am a very big believer in bodily autonomy, allowing someone to do whatever they want to their own flesh and bones, but I agreed with him, although I think from a very different place. To modify the body is to create one's image, the version of the self that is presented to the world, and to signal (intentionally or not) who the inhabitant is. Costs of some of the procedures that women are expected to get regularly do pile up very quickly, meaning that many women learn to do them by themselves, seeing paying someone else to do it for them as a luxury. Both of these connect someone to their body, either by forming a relationship with it; working on it, learning it, altering it with your very own control, or by finding peace in having things done to the body; getting things done as a treat, thinking of procedures as an exciting experience.
Women's engagement in life-long body projects is not something to be minimised to a result societal pressure, as often they are also ways of marking identity, expressing the self, or a creative outlet. These are more pointed in 'out there' or 'alternative' people for the simple fact of standing out. The average person engages in these behaviours for the exact same reasons as well, think the way someone styles their hair, does their makeup, or dresses. While not modifications of the body, these are modifications of the way the body is presented to the world, and seen by the world. The clothes someone wears can signal community membership, like a band t-shirt or a bougie logo. It may show off identity aspects, like a coloured handkerchief in a back pocket or an overall 'aesthetic'. The very act of dressing with fashion in mind is creative and expressive. These things, which most everyone thinks of from time to time, are precursors to true bodily modification for the same purposes.
Of course, non-women are expected and encouraged to participate in life-long body projects as well, but to different degrees. Men are often expected to keep fit and tidy, meaning changing the body through exercise, eating, and some other small things. The difference between the two sets of expectations is stark! Men's body projects are also overlooked fairly regularly, though, not seen as luxuries or treats, and not often used to connect or ground one to the body. The window of acceptability is a lot slimmer, and I personally think it is in part due to misogyny. Men who do 'too much' grooming (e.g. getting manicures, hair removal, eyelash tinting) are seen as effeminate, and therefore 'undesirable' to many, and often are put down by other men. I feel there is a lot more camaraderie among women than there is among men, so a woman outside of the window of acceptability is not seen as lesser by fellow women like a man would be by fellow men.
The window of acceptability is even slimmer again in the case of transgender people. Trans men and trans women are both expected to 'pass' to be seen as their gender by wider society. Trans people that do not pass are often invalidated, dismissed, or otherwise mistreated. The nuances to body modification that trans people undergo are so incredibly complex. In the simplest terms I can find, there is even more blur between joy-seeking modification and modification done out of fear or want to fit in. I truly cannot go into all of it in this sitting.
For non-binary transgender people, there is often an expectation of androgyny, which needs quite a lot of upkeep for many to maintain, but this is absolutely not the only way to be non-binary.
The never-ending cycles of body alteration can be a beautiful thing if approached from the right angle, and if one chooses to ignore societal pressure and expectation, instead choosing to make their body into their own creation outside all rules and regulations.