Opposites
Don’t Always Attract
It
is fascinating to think that a single stimulus can create an entire spectrum of
reactions. Flannery O’Connor’s short story, “Parker’s Back,” and Juniper
Ellis’, Tattooing the World, both
illustrate how tattoo can either be accepted and encouraged, or feared and even
hated. Parker cherishes his tattoos and thinks they give him an identity, while
his wife thoroughly detests them. Likewise, James O’Connell’s tatau gives him
acceptance into the Oceanic community, yet in America his tattoos cause women
to flee from him.
“Parker’s
Back” shows the breakdown of a marriage that is most directly caused by
completely opposing mindsets of Parker and his wife, but is shown through their
disagreement over tattoos. Parker’s wife, Sarah Ruth, is religious, serious,
and plain. Parker, on the other hand, is an ex-member of the Navy, not
religious, and heavily tattooed. The two are completely wrong for each other,
and Parker wonders if “she had married him because she meant to save him”
(O’Connor, 425). Their stark differences
come to a head when Parker gets a tattoo of God on his back. Parker has an
epiphany and thinks that this tattoo will please his wife, but Sarah Ruth has a
completely adverse reaction to it and actually beats Parker. These conflicting
views of the tattoo symbolize the incompatible beliefs of the husband and wife,
and show how these discordant beliefs lead to the breakdown of the marriage.
Tattooing the World also describes how one
man’s body art spurs acceptance into a community, but also spurs great
confusion and fear. James O’Connell’s story of being tattooed in the Pacific
Islands and then travelling to America depicts how one idea can have such
disparate reactions among different cultures. In the Pacific Islands, “the
traditional patterns gave him his life”, but in New York, he is considered a
freak marvel (Ellis, 1). Although in
both contexts the tattoos give O’Connell an identity, these identities are
vastly different. This is because the community-based Pacific Island culture
itself is starkly different from the more conservative and individualized
American culture. Like when Parker’s wife rejects Parker’s new beloved tattoo,
O’Connell’s tattoos act as both “an index of inclusion and exclusion” in
different cultures (Ellis, 49).
At
my service learning in the self-contained class at Tunbridge, I thought about
how the children with learning disabilities also can cause quite different
reactions in people. Unlike tattoos, which people usually freely choose to get,
the students in my class did not choose to have their disabilities. However,
since they are considered “different” from the typical population, various
people perceive them differently. For example, my teacher and I treat the
children with respect, and admire their uniqueness. However, I have seen other
professionals treat the children as if they are infants, and attempt to make
them “normal”. Like Parker and O’Connell’s tattoos, the disorders of the
children mark them as different and somewhat define their identity as a
“disabled” child. However, also like the tattoos, the disorders of the child do
not completely make them who they are. In comparison to Parker’s wife and the
New Yorkers, people who fear or have adverse reactions to the students are in
an ignorant and confused mindset. They reject foreign or atypical things
because they do not conform to their preconceived notions of “normal”. Much
like the Pacific Islanders and Parker, my teacher and I accept the differences
of the children and try not to let the labels of “disordered” affect our view
of them as whole individuals. Although the children may be different, they are
still a great part of the Tunbridge community and should be appreciated rather
than feared.
No comments:
Post a Comment