When considering whether to get a tattoo, people are frequently concerned about implications for employability. There is a general perception that tattoos—particularly large designs on visible parts of the body—might interfere with future employment.

I find this deeply interesting for a few reasons.

Firstly, this concern seems to arise from an unstated neoliberal ideology. Neoliberal ideology is so pervasive in 21st century industrialised societies that we often don’t notice it. In neoliberal thought, it is the individual’s responsibility to work hard and act in the correct ways to find and secure employment. Employment and productivity are seen as a primary source of human value. However, there are other sources of value—many people throughout history have found deep value and meaning in non-productive and non-economic activities, including self-expression and membership in a group. Tattoos have served both self-expression and group membership functions throughout history. It is interesting that neoliberal ideology takes precedence, in an unstated and often unnoticed way, over these other valid forms of meaning and value.

Secondly, it is interesting that a form of self-expression of the body is seen as potentially unprofessional. I think this has really interesting implications for what sorts of behaviour we deem “professional” and “unprofessional”.

In the book Tattoo Culture: Theory and Contemporary Contexts, Lee Barron writes:

Given that the precepts of professionalism redirect focus away from the body as a source of labor, tattoos draw constant attention to the embodied self by being literally written on the skin.

In white-collar professionalism, as expressed through the stereotypical office environment, the mind is seen as the vehicle of labour. The body and its needs are seen as unprofessional, and employees are often rewarded for suppressing the needs of the body (e.g. skipping lunch, not sleeping properly, working when sick) for the sake of work. We can see this perspective being expressed in other debates, such as debates over breastfeeding in the office. It is interesting that in both tattoos and breastfeeding, the professional is constructed as a mind-oriented and masculine figure, while the unprofessional is constructed as a body-oriented and feminine figure. (There are also elements of race here, which has been explored elsewhere by various writers who explore white supremacy and systemic racism.)

This is interesting from a transgender perspective. I am a white-collar worker, and I’m also transgender. Even ignoring my tattoos, my body is highly visible, whether it’s people’s scrutiny of my gender presentation or my body’s changing needs and appearance as I navigate a second puberty. I have immense privilege as I work fully remotely from home, which is naturally both a disembodied environment (in terms of interactions with colleagues) and an environment that provides me with significant freedom in meeting my body’s needs.

Of course, in blue-collar professionalism, such as the trades and construction, things are different. Tattoos don’t necessarily have the same implications for professionalism. There might still be some concerns around employment for blue; I haven’t looked at survey data to compare white-collar and blue-collar perspectives on tattoos, though I’m sure such surveys exist. However, I suspect that since blue-collar professions involve using the body, there is a greater acceptance of the visibility of the body. What is interesting to me here is that the professional blue-collar work might be constructed as a person who visibly uses their body, it is still masculine!

Thirdly, the fact that tattoos are seen as a visible and perhaps unprofessional form of bodily self-expression echoes historical perspectives on tattooing. For example, in Europe in the late 1800s and early 1900s, much of the public discourse on tattoos (though certainly not all) was focused on Pacific Islanders. Pacific Islanders, whose tattooing practices were often witnessed by white colonists and shared in Europe to great public interest, were constructed as savage/primitive/backward. Here, savagery and primitiveness often involved a supposed focus on the body rather than the mind. In contrast, the white European was constructed as civilised/enlightened and one who pursues a life of the mind rather than a life of the body. There is a gendered element here too—in many tattoo traditions (I think this is true for some Pacific tattoo traditions, but it has also been true for many European and Asian tattoo traditions throughout history), tattooing is primarily performed by women on the body of other women.

I don’t mean to say that concerns around employment are not valid! Of course, finding and maintaining employment is a totally valid concern in our modern society. I just find it so interesting how these concerns tend to hide these specific ideologies.