by Jacob Spjut

“They’re so cold, these scholars! May lightning strike their food so that their mouths learn how to eat fire!”

—Friedrich Nietzsche

There can not be a discussion concerning the contemporary history of the piercing industry without elitism entering into it. Elitism is so ingrained—even when there is growing democratization of information and  sharing of knowledge the world over—that the fear it will reveal its serpentine head has weakened the discussions required for the industry to continue to grow. Likely influenced by a culture crippled by the sentiment that it is reasonable to denounce expertise as superfluous, piercers are embracing the view that “my [anecdotal experience] is just as good as your knowledge.”¹ Holding these particular beliefs and thinking they are somehow applicable to the entirety  of the industry makes this wholesale denunciation unsurprising. Elitism, which elicits feelings of otherness and exclusion, should no longer be a term thrown carelessly at an individual or group who strives to establish themselves as experts or as elite piercers. Applying disparaging meaning to any word similar to elitism, elite, or expert, for example, has driven  many piercers to reject taking principled stands or engaging in valuable dialogue concerning essential issues to avoid becoming branded  as  a charlatan or worse. The term elite, unfairly marred by its close association with elitism, can and should be used in the field to denote the positive positioning of individuals based on unique and qualifying attributes that can propel the industry forward. Overcoming the natural desire to reject an expert or elite piercer, as though they are an elitist piercer is paramount to the future of body piercing. Overcoming this desire, though, creates a unique challenge for piercers. Ego and a lack of consensus between piercers creates fissures that make the very idea of a group of experts seem intrinsically counterproductive to a growing and marketable industry. With focus, this problem is shown not to be insurmountable.

The existence of a top rung on this field’s ladder is a somewhat nebulous idea. There is little way to judge how “good” a piercer is or whether their ideas merit consideration. The inability to empirically discern what constitutes a qualified expert is true in almost any human intellectual endeavor, as subjectivity is a strong force against which to contend. This is especially true in fields that can reach the same result, like a well-healed piercing, through different means. This dilemma, however, does not make the act of examining and choosing this upper echelon of piercers superfluous.

Discerning who is qualified for the title is further made difficult by the historical justifications for the rejection of expertise. The Puritan “originators” of the United States upheld the idea that no group can preside over any individual; this was foundational to the oppressive nature of these “New World Settlers.” This rejection has carried forward for centuries, the result being expertise is no longer considered adequate; everyone feels entitled, even required, to have an opinion falsely regarded as equally valid as any other. “To reject the advice of experts is to assert autonomy, a way for Americans to insulate their increasingly fragile egos from ever being told they’re wrong about anything […] All things are knowable, and every opinion on any subject is as good as any other.”²

In the piercing field, this dismissal of expertise appears to have origins in hyperbolic discussions between some piercers attempting to absolve themselves of resentment. They likely felt that these other piercers were upholding “elitist” standards that contradicted policies they, the resentful, had practiced for years “without issue.” Many piercers remember this as a rebuff of the APP; the APP was used as a generalized term by many individuals to denote a piercer that maintained a set of standards deemed “unnecessary.” The myth of a group of elitist piercers likely has legitimate beginnings, but there is little reason to believe that for nearly two decades their existence has been the reality. Contrarily, an outpouring of information by a highly educated group of piercers has shown the benefit of learned leaders, as they have helped cultivate an environment of continuing education and progression. However, one can not overlook that history may have reduced the ability of many piercers to counteract the pressure to reject expertise. Regardless of its justification, this rejection continues to occur, though in smaller instances, leading to a distrust between professionals that hinders growth and can de-legitimize those involved.

The irony of this repudiation, whether of APP Members themselves, the Association as a whole, or of piercers dedicated to the highest standards attainable, is that many considered elitists ten years ago have helped to foster online communities that have seen the improvement of throngs of young piercers. The online communities that formed over the last decade are creating a circle of trusted piercers that are approached for their expertise when previously these experts were considered a pernicious influence over body piercing. When looking at the roster of consistently highly ranked teachers at the APP’s Annual Conference, or the moderators in the most notable active learning forums, it is evident that elite piercers exist within the field. It seems piercers have, with some hesitation, exited the cave of ignorance, from rejecting to elevating the rejected, but it is still imperative not to descend back into that cave of dismissal. Prevailing in the light requires admitting that there are more talented practitioners in the piercing room and that, after spending a great deal of time dedicated to garnering information pertaining to specific areas in the field, these piercers have increased the collective understanding of piercing. This is not necessarily accomplishable by all, but many with devotion can contribute significantly to the discourse. The challenge for the industry, however, is not necessarily how to create elite piercers, as they already exist. It is how they are recognized and used to further the industry.

Recognition begins by taking traits that hold universal appeal as being advantageous to intellectual growth and using these as a basis that will inform practitioners as to what separates expert and elite piercers from strictly experienced piercers. Addressing that this subject can invoke preconceived notions of what is meant when using vernacular that is similar is also necessary. “Elitism” is often suggestive of pedantic sterile field fanatics or of contemptible piercers using bully tactics to shame up-and-coming piercers into “hanging up their needles.” One is reminded of piercers using imaginary titles to denote their level of “mastery” in the craft, or those who have allowed their deeply held convictions on any given subject to give them a feeling of self-importance that makes any other “less than” merely because of a differing opinion. These typical instances of an “elitist” should not poison the well of what an expert or elite piercer is.

In comparison, an elite piercer has a deeper and more full understanding of a given subject or area of focus, and assert that they should not only disseminate that learning, but must expand upon their knowledge indefinitely. Elite piercers should be helpful, while being open to discussion and the pursuit of innovative ideas. They should always work hard to develop themselves as educators and maintain the philosophy that complacency is the death song of a good leader. They use their skill and understanding to advance the field in its totality, and they do not use it to amass “internet cool points.” When discussing ideas, they hold fast to their opinions, yet are accepting of provocation without being inexorable when presented with a valid argument. They are not from any single group, and one can not befriend themselves into their ranks. These are essential semantic distinctions and must be understood.

Piercers who are working towards developing these traits, and the elevation of those individuals who possess them, can be used to benefit everyone; creating opportunities for anyone who wishes to better the industry by instigating positive changes that vivify and encourage the culture that should be fostered. Creating an outlet for positive change will benefit the practitioners who are a part of this group, those who strive to be a part of it, and the clients assisted with the craft. Together, these changes will bring about a better experience for anyone who enters into the orbit of a piercer. This position of earned power requires a great deal of courage and demands a certain level of humility. This humility should not come at the expense of the critical need for depth of conviction, however. This is increasingly more important as a growing crisis of trusted piercers softening their positions rises in learning settings where they avoid conflict with others that may not agree with their ideas. By denying that some piercers are better or more knowledgeable, the bar of competence is deeply lowered, to a point where demonstrably inadequate piercers are  given the same weighted influence as their more educated peers. Weakening informed opinions, coupled with the growing focus towards educating new or struggling piercers, will be catastrophic.

This tendency is seen, more and more, in the classroom at the annual Association of Professional Piercers educational conference. Teachers, selected  because of their expertise concerning a subject, often concede points that may be contentious between practitioners. Sterile gloves, touted as an essential step forward by many, are rejected as just past the line of necessary by others. Surface finish, a subject that does not, at face value, seem like a position open to controversy, brings about inimical arguments where the ethical foundation in opposition is built on nothing more than“having not killed anyone.” Even standards adopted from other industries are cherry-picked to not further complicate established practices in one studio or another. What is an attendee to learn from exchanges that offer nothing more than “this is just how we do it?” It is ascertained that there is no reason to believe that any single idea is authoritative and that any position is equal as long as it falls within one’s “experience.” This should not be tolerable. The teacher, or any attendee with a reasoned argument to make, should not concede to an idea they disagree with unless they have been convinced they are, indeed, wrong. It is easy to say this concession is made only to avoid ostracizing a piercer who practices different standards. After all, there is room for differing approaches to piercing. There is merit to this, but it misses the point of reasoned dialog. One is to come to an opinion based on defensible points of reference. Which one of these positions is correct is debatable, thus refusing to debate is detrimental. Sterile gloves or surface finish may seem like silly and arbitrary examples, but it is analogous of many, more serious disagreements that plague the industry.

Potential problems that can arise when the industry embraces a perceived shadowy network of super piercers dictating what type of piercings will trend or how best to pierce a navel must be considered, as well. Piercers are not above being ego-driven and closed to critical evaluation. The fact that being open to critique is hailed as something special in the aforementioned online communities is telling. Experts on any given subject in the industry can also be wrong, biased, or they may be unable to see the nuance to a given idea.

Some, though not many, may even fall into the classification of “elitist,” making the need to be able to distinguish them even more critical. Regardless, allowing uninformed piercers to postulate ignorant ideas that go unchallenged can influence leadership within the APP or the online communities to implement policy or suggest ideas that hinder growth. This is the antithesis of what is essential to piercing’s future.

Thankfully, the piercing industry benefits from its interconnectedness, and delving into oligarchical ruin is not likely. Not only is it unlikely, but the structures already in place—structures that have led to a trusted network of expert piercers, such as the vetting process in the online forums—will make the problem an improbability. Piercers who, through hard work, rise to high positions will be accountable to every other piercer, at least to those working towards increasing the field’s prestige themselves. There is little room for ego-driven self-importance, especially when piercers looking to leadership for change are relentless in exposing muddied thinking and promoting good ideas. Critical examination of any proposition, regardless of whom it is coming from, is the mechanism by which the industry will flourish, and it must be encouraged.

It can not be denied that elitism has damaged the piercing industry. It has created fear. In this culture of fear, piercers have begun to turn inward, allowing subjectivity to be the essential consideration when ideas are posited. Many are rejecting, consciously or not, that there are those who are presenting more informed positions. They are labeling these other piercers inaccurately, using stigmatized terms to create ad hominem attacks and stifling required debate. This is a failure in need of reform. There are opinions that hold more water than others, and these opinions, though entirely open to challenge, are going to be presented by piercers that have spent the time to hone and expand on them. It is crucial to accept that an elite group of piercers exists, that this group’s roster is in constant flux, and that this is good for the industry. The acceptance of this fact will cause a shift that will make more widely applicable ideas resulting in the highest good for the industry. It must also be accepted that conviction to an opinion and being receptive to those who challenge it are two sides of the same coin of advancement. The industry must not fall for the false narrative that expertise is a prelude to elitism. Instead, the industry and its practitioners should embrace the title of “elite” as a call to responsible action, and work to earn that title every day.

1) Asimov, Isaac, “A Cult of Ignorance.” Newsweek, January 21,1980, 19.

2) Kakutani, Michiko, “‘The Death of Expertise’ Explores How Ignorance Became a Virtue,” The New York Times, March 21, 2017, https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/21/books/the-death-of-expertise-explores-how-ignorance-became-a-virtue.html