Language Analysis the Power of Ink Essay

Helen Day is a part-time journalist and communicateger. She maintains her communicate entitled Street beat on a variety of current social issues. This blog entry, The Power of sign, is about tattoos and it has drawn a variety of responses from readers of her blog.In recent years, the practice of inking your body, or having tattoos indelibly imprinted on your skin has become almost de rigueur for some in our society, especially the young. There is a wide variety of views about this practice and Helen Day, a regular blogger, has her say in her entry The Power of Ink. Rather than lecturing her substantial audience of followers, Day chooses simply to trace the stages of the history of tattoos, foc use on the changes in their heart and significance. Her use of examples and language with banish connotations is effective in arguing that people who choose to adorn themselves with tattoos ar just as much victims or prisoners as those for whom they were originally intended. Her blog att racted quaternion extremely varied responses within the next twenty four hours, showing that this is indeed a contentious issue. Helen Day begins by establishing the ubiquitous nature of tattoos. In a light-hearted, humorous fashion, she mentions that people from all walks of life, including suburban housewives, newsreaders and sitcom stars have words and pictures drawn on their skin.Even at this early stage, she mentions prison and readers may feel uncomfortable with this reference, which is just what the writer intends. She clearly states her contention that the power of ink has diminished. Day begins her argument by clearly establishing the original purpose of tattooing, using examples from millennia as support. She mentions the origins of the practice where the unconsenting backs of prisoners and slaves were give awayed to show that they were owned, deviant or incarcerated. She goes further to remind readers of the literal and metaphorical indelible cruelty of the tattoos for ced upon inmates of the Nazi ingress camps during World War 11. Her words are carefully chosen at this stage of her argument to create a feeling of unease and repulsion in her audience at the idea that tattoos represented possessorship or control and that those on whom they were imposed were considered to be somewhere between property and machine.By associating tattoos with lack of free will or self-determination, she predisposes her readers to think negatively of the practice of tattooing, even before she considers what it represents in contemporary society. Day goes on to provide an congresswoman of how those forced to wear tattoos resented this imposition and how they showed their refusal to be controlled, satirising their owners by adopting their own version of an owners mark. She connects this act of defiance to the motivation behind her decision to picture her feminist principles in the 1990s, wryly remarking that her attempt to protest and be unique fell flat because now e ven the British Prime Ministers wife has an ankle tattoo. The language the writer uses here is quite mocking of her young self. She separates herself from the young Helen, representing her actions as clich and immature, in an attempt to position her readers to view it in the same way. The comment from young Tash (written late at night) is a perfect example of such (some might say misguided) youthful impulsiveness.Readers can hear the tempestuousness in Tashs voice as she describes how she designed her own ankle bracelet and how she likes to show it off. The use of language such as like and yeah, suggests that she is very young and may one day regret her decision just as Helen Day does. The comment from Cleanskin also echoes Days point that tattoos fade and stretch over time and may not suit an older person. These responses underline the writers message of act in haste, repent at leisure and young readers may cringe when reading Tashs enthusiastic comment. Day concludes her blog en try by redefining the social meaning of tattoos in todays society. She describes them as having been commodified, that is, just something else to be bought and sold and with no real significance. She uses the expression try hard, suggesting that people who have tattoos are doing so to create a false image of themselves in order to find acceptance. Readers would certainly not like to be included in this category. By describing tattoos as fashions proprietary mark, she is claiming that those who decide to tattoo themselves are just as much slaves and prisoners as the original bearers of these marks, it is just that their owner is now fashion.In suggesting that tattoo wearers are still under the control of an outside force, thatfashion trends are dictating their actions, she hopes that readers will review their attitude to the practice. The secern between the two accompanying images starkly demonstrates the writers argument that the meaning of tattoos has changed. The Ta Moko on the a rms of the three Maori men clearly mark them as members of the same clan. The three tattoos are identical to each other, suggesting that the design is traditional and has a particular significance for the wearers. Kiwis indignant interpretation of non-Maoris imitating the sacred Ta Moko as identity theft would act as a strong disincentive to readers to undertake such a disgraceful and criminal action. The other shoulder tattoo of a star, shown on the front cover of Sam de Britos 2006 book, might well have been designed by the wearer, exactly it has none of the cultural weight of the Ta Moko designs.The images reinforce the idea that it may be fashion that is dictating the current trend to tattoo ones skin. This blog is certainly cause for thought. Although Helen Day sets out to argue that the power of ink has diminished, she actually argues against this. In establishing the contention that tattoos are still just as powerful a message about ownership, but that the owner has change d from government and slave owner to the tyrant of fashion, she prompts her online audience to rethink whether in deciding to ink themselves they are actually being a unique rebellious individual or just another fashion victim.