Purity, Dirt, and the Doctor’s Sleeves

 

        In this split-frame, we see the same man photographed in two contrasting personas. On the left, he appears wearing a white medical coat, buttoned up with a tie, a stethoscope neatly draped around his neck and a neutral expression on his face. The professional, softly lit setting goes well with the sterile, commanding feel of his attire. The same individual may be seen on the right, both arms completely tattooed, wearing a bright red sleeveless shirt. His posture is more comfortable, almost confrontational, and his hands are causally hooked into his pants. In contrast to the spotless white coat that originally covered them, the bright, colorful tattoos that go from shoulder to wrist are visibly striking. The change is solely focused on the subject’s styling and framing due to the background and lighting remaining the same. 

        In Purity and Danger, Mary Douglas argues that the concept of “dirt” refers to things that are out of place, rather than cleanliness or germs. She writes that “There is no such thing as absolute dirt; it exists in the eye of the beholder… Dirt offends against order. Eliminating it is not a negative movement, but a positive effort to reorganize the environment” (Douglas 2002: 2). In other words, what we label as dirty or impure simply deviates from societal norms regarding what goes where; it doesn’t have any sort of inherent significance. Therefore, dirt becomes a symbol of disorder, and labeling something as “dirty” or “taboo” is a way for societies to reinforce their boundaries and maintain control. This is also true when it comes to the body, which she characterizes as “...a model which can stand for any bounded system. Its boundaries can represent any boundaries which are threatened or precarious.” (Douglas, 2002: 142) The body turns into a metaphor for society; any breaches on its bounds, such as the use of blood, tattoos, or bodily fluids, might represent a danger to societal order. Douglas discusses the way that all margins of the body are dangerous, as they stand for areas where control is lost and categorization breaks down. So, in order to reassert structure, cultures frequently establish taboos and rituals that define what, and by whom, is allowed by establishing guidelines for what can be seen, touched, eaten, or exposed in specific contexts. 

Through Douglas’s lens, this picture illustrates how visible tattoos turn into symbolic “dirt” when viewed in a setting that requires purity, like medicine. Although tattoos are not necessarily impure, they defy social norms regarding the ideal appearance of a “professional” body when they are displayed on a doctor’s arms. In contrast, the white coat serves as a sort of ritual garment, restoring a feeling of symbolic order while hiding the marked body. According to Douglas, bodily markings, like tattoos, can induce discomfort because they blur the lines between inside and outside, trusted and distrusted, what is clean and what is dirty. If this same doctor were to roll up his sleeves in a hospital setting, revealing his tattoos to patients or colleagues, it could unsettle the expected performance of medical authority, making visible what is supposed to remain hidden. The man in this picture is questioned in one frame and accepted in another, not because he has changed but rather because his body is now “out of place.” 

References:

Douglas, Mary. 2005. Purity and Danger: An Analysis of Concept of Pollution and Taboo. London ; New York: Routledge.

Becca. 2017. “Tattoos and Piercings, Expression or Unprofessional?” Medium. Retrieved April 2, 2025. https://medium.com/@becca.bottorff23/tattoos-and-piercings-expression-or-unprofessional-c83a4473c752