Fuchsia Dunlop: Five Tastes, Chinese Flavour and the Art of Balance

Food writer Fuchsia Dunlop returns to the podcast to discuss her new book, Five Tastes: The Magic of Flavour in the Chinese Kitchen, and what Chinese cooking can teach us about flavour, texture, balance and learning to trust our senses.

Fuchsia explains the Chinese idea of wèi (味), taste or flavour, and why the classical five tastes (sweet, sour, salty, bitter and pungent) are better understood as a cultural framework than a literal limit. We explore běnwèi (本味), the essential flavour of an ingredient; xiānwèi (鲜味), the fresh savoury quality we now call umami; and xiāngwèi (香味), fragrance and aroma. We also discuss how Chinese cooks use ginger, spring onion, Shaoxing wine and other seasonings to correct unwanted flavours while allowing good ingredients to speak for themselves.


A central idea is that balance often happens across an entire meal, not within every dish. A fiercely málà (麻辣), numbing-and-hot dish might sit alongside plain rice, vegetables and a light qīngdàn (清淡) broth. These quieter foods are not failed attempts at excitement: their role is to soothe, cleanse the palate and make the meal work as a whole. Fuchsia also explains Sichuanese guàiwèi (怪味), “strange flavour”, where multiple strong seasonings are combined so harmoniously that none dominates.


We move from taste to texture: slippery, crisp, chewy, glutinous and gelatinous pleasures that are often more central to Chinese eating than Western diners realise. Fuchsia recommends wood ear mushrooms as an accessible introduction, and jellyfish for the more adventurous.

The conversation also becomes practical: how to build a Chinese meal from what looks good at the market, why not to overcrowd a wok, the usefulness of cold dishes and flexible sauces, and how Chinese flavours can travel into roast potatoes, roast chicken and even a French-style vinaigrette. Fuchsia talks about fermented tofu, three decades of food research and around 170–180 notebooks of observations, recipes and conversations gathered across China.

We discuss why becoming a better cook means moving beyond timers and measurements towards smell, sight, sound and taste — knowing when garlic has lost its raw edge, or when hot oil is ready because ginger and spring onion immediately hiss.

We finish with overrated or underrated: hot pot, steaming, microwaves, air fryers and tasting menus; and with Fuchsia’s argument that Chinese cooking can be immensely sophisticated without being intimidating.

Key takeaways

  • Balance belongs to the meal. Strong, spicy dishes make more sense alongside plain rice, vegetables, soups and other quieter foods.

  • Good cooking starts with the ingredient. Běnwèi is about understanding and respecting its natural flavour, then deciding whether to reveal, correct or transform it.

  • Chinese flavour goes far beyond “the five tastes”. Umami, fragrance, numbness, texture and compound flavours all form part of a much richer culinary vocabulary.

  • Texture deserves as much attention as taste. Crisp, slippery, chewy, soft and gelatinous foods create contrast and prevent the palate becoming bored.

  • Recipes are training wheels for judgement. Smell, listen, look and taste rather than relying only on exact timings.

  • Chinese cooking can be very simple. A few useful seasonings and techniques open up a large repertoire of fast, healthy everyday food.

Fuchsia Dunlop in her own words

“They’re not meant to be stimulating and exciting. They’re meant to soothe you.”

On the purpose of qīngdàn, light and understated dishes within a balanced Chinese meal.

“Chinese cuisine is hugely complex and sophisticated… but it has… simple dishes that you can knock up in five minutes after work.”

On why people should not be intimidated by cooking Chinese food at home.

Contents

00:00 Welcome Fuchsia Dunlop
00:30 Five Tastes explained
03:53 Balance and layered flavour
06:44 Correcting off flavours
08:43 Fragrance and Maillard
11:34 Umami and xiānwèi
15:08 Harmony in sauces
18:05 Seasoning and salt
20:21 Showcase or transform
23:40 Qīngdàn and light broths
30:15 Texture as variety
34:31 Wood ear textures
35:29 Jellyfish crunch
36:29 Menu planning basics
38:33 Cold dishes and sauces
40:10 Roasts with Chinese flavours
41:37 Creating new recipes
43:16 Fermented tofu magic
45:14 Food, culture and field notes
49:55 Cooking by the senses
53:16 Overrated / underrated
59:37 Final advice and future projects

Transcript (AI-assited so mistakes possible)

Ben: Hey, everybody. I'm delighted to welcome Fuchsia Dunlop back to the podcast. Fuchsia is one of the finest food writers working today, and she's one of the most perceptive and engaging writers on Chinese food. Her new book is Five Tastes: The Magic of Flavour in the Chinese Kitchen, and I always come away from her work having learned something new about culture, history, and how to eat and cook better.

Fuchsia, welcome back.

Fuchsia: Thank you, Ben. It's lovely to be back.

Ben: When a Western cook says taste and a Chinese cook says wei, taste, are they actually talking about the same thing? Or within the Chinese idea, are we containing a whole philosophy of relationship, balance, and transformation that perhaps the English misses?

Fuchsia: I suppose it is slightly different because in one sense wei is talking about taste or flavour equivalent to the one that we talk about in English, except that the Chinese have five flavours or five tastes, whereas we have four. Chinese adding xin or la meaning pungent or spicy, to the, the Western sort of accepted four.

And beyond that, wei is a metaphor for all the flavours of the world and for the ple- like, if you say someone chases after the five flavours, the five tastes you mean that they're obsessed with good food. So flavour or taste becomes a metaphor for the pleasures of eating, of gastronomy, and also it ties in with the Chinese concepts of five, tying in across the cosmos.

So you have five directions, adding center to north, south, east, west. You have five colours, five phases or elements. So there's this whole system of fives. So I think there is a sort of metaphorical aspect which is perhaps deeper than it is in the Western four tastes.

Ben: So the five Chinese tastes are sweet, sour, salty, bitter, and pungent.

We can argue about that translation. And your book soon adds umami, numbness, fragrance, lightness, essential flavour, and we can go on. And then in Western cooking, as you hinted, in the sensory sciences we tend to talk about salt, sweet, bitter, sour, and we've added umami and sometimes mention of fat and acid.

And I think you alluded to this. So do you still think five tastes is the first right initial organizing idea because of the metaphorical way of thinking about this, that actually five is still quite a useful concept? Or is that perhaps a little bit misleading because it is a little bit more narrow and doesn't take into account some of the relational aspects of Chinese flavour?

Fuchsia: I don't think it's meant to be taken literally, really. So for example in the Western five tastes, now umami is largely considered to be an additional one because scientists have found that there are sensors in our brains and on our tongues that actually respond to umami in the same way that they respond to sweet and sour.

So it's always going to be a sort of classical, metaphorical, cultural concept of taste. But as you already mentioned there are various other flavour and taste terms in Chinese culinary arts and in Chinese gastronomy which are incredibly useful, both in the appreciation of food and to the home cook.

So I think it's not really a question about whether five tastes are limiting or not. It's an expression of the beauty of the Chinese arts of flavour for me, and that's why I chose it as the title of my book

Ben: Excellent. And if we go one more level deeper then on Chinese flavour, I had the impression from your writing within it that perhaps it's a little bit more relational than sort of English cooking concepts, in sense you have one taste correcting, one taste complementing.

When I read English or Western cookbooks, they tend to be a little bit more ingredient-centered. Do you think this is correct in terms of thinking about relational balance within flavour?

Fuchsia: I think that Chinese cooking is very technical and very thoughtful, and the Chinese have a very serious culinary culture in the way that the French do, with a whole vocabulary to express different processes and different concepts.

And I think that they are more abundant in these culinary concepts than we are perhaps in English because, the English, we borrow most of our culinary terms from French anyway. So in Chinese, yes, I would say that the idea of balance is at the heart of China- not just Chinese food, but also Chinese culture.

Yin and yang, and a good Chinese menu is always balanced, and there's an idea that if you have some dishes which are strongly flavoured, you should have some that are qingdan, which means very light and delicate. And then also as [Lin Yutang], that great interpreter of Chinese culture for the West in the early 20th century said, "Chinese cuisine is all about the art of mixture."

So typically you cut ingredients into small pieces and you combine them. So you don't have a steak. You cut up your piece of meat and you stir-fry it with a vegetable, perhaps with another ingredient. And so I suppose in flavour terms as well it's often about combinations of flavours. And I think particularly in Sichuan because Sichuan is the sort of home of flavour in China, you can argue, because the whole essence of Chinese cuisine is not just hot and spicy like the stereotype.

It's [fu kou wei], layered flavours. [Bai cai bai wei], 100 dishes, 100 different flavours. So in Sichuan, where I originally learned to cook in China you have all these combinations of flavours, not just sweet and sour, which of course is a sort of emblem of Chinese cuisine all over the world, but strange flavour, fish fragrant, all these different combinations which are meant to be balanced to create an exciting taste and, and in contrast and harmony with other dishes.

And as you said earlier, apart from the idea of actual- the flavours that you add to foods with seasonings. So sweet and sour, classic example of that. There are also all kinds of concepts for just the basics of handling ingredients and what ingredients have to offer. So the most fundamental perhaps is ben wei, the root taste or essential taste, and that's the sort of inherent natural taste of an ingredient.

And the job of the cook in Chinese conception is to honor the ben wei, the root taste of an ingredient, and to use the culinary arts to if there's anything slightly unpleasant about it, to correct that, and then to showcase this essential flavour. And so the idea of correcting flavours is a concept that you find not only in Chinese cuisine, but in many cuisines acro- across Asia and even the Arab world, that meaty and fishy ingredients sometimes have a sort of slightly unpleasant edge to their flavours.

And there are all these terms in China like [xing we]i, fishy taste [yi wei], off taste, some ... [shan wei], a muttony taste, which go back more than 2,000 years in  the Chinese kitchen. So the first thing you do with your ingredient is you think, "Are there any of these slightly off tastes, and what do I do to subdue them?"

And so this is why when you're cooking meat in Chinese cooking, you often add salt and Shaoxing wine, which is to refine away those unpleasant meaty tastes. Similar with crushed ginger and spring onion or scallion. And then with quite heavy meats like- sheep meat, which has this shan wei, this muttony taste, which is traditionally not prized, for the Chinese.

You often find sort of things like garlic and coriander and spices like star anise and Chinese cardamom, and all these are also about correcting these off tastes. And then the other one, I think you mentioned [xiang wei], fragrance. This is a beautiful Chinese culinary term, and I think the character originated from the character for millet.

But it's also associated with incense, and it's associated with the scent of sacrifices and burning things to create wonderful scents to send up to the spirits. And the Chinese use the word fragrant very widely in cooking, and it's often used to describe what Western cooks might call Maillard reaction.

So when you're toasting and browning things and creating these wonderful smells, Chinese would describe that as xiang wei. And some ingredients are particularly xiang, like duck, roast duck, that wonderful aroma. And also toasty things like scorched spring onion whites, that's very xiang. A lot of these concepts, they're not, they're not the five essential tastes, but they're all about how you use flavour in cooking.

And I think that for a foreigner to understand them, it's a way to up your cooking game, and also more deeply appreciate not only Chinese food, but any kind of food

Ben: Yes, my mom tends to insist on slices of ginger with fish because she'll talk about fishiness in her dialect.

And then perhaps even more extreme, when I've cooked my mom's liver and do it in, say, a little bit more English or Western styles, which tend to be plainer and get to the essence of liver, she essentially complains. She says, "There's this liver pungent, off flavour," and says "Why haven't you done anything with that?"

And she would cook it in a very different way, much more layered and flavoured and say that's how you should cook liver and your offal, and you've got this completely wrong," which I think's really interesting.

Fuchsia: Yeah, 'cause  with offal dishes in China, you find more Shaoxing wine and salt, and this idea of really cleaning up and refining the flavours.

So yeah. And I always say to people, if you want to, if you're not Chinese and you haven't come across these concepts and you want to understand what it's about, if you make a pork bone stock or broth, try making it with and without a bit of crushed ginger and spring onion.

And the one with the ginger and spring onion, the flavour is just brighter and cleaner and more beautiful. And also, if you blanch the bones first, which is the other thing that the Chinese cook would do to refine away these meaty tastes. It really is l- night and day.

Ben: My mom can always tell if I have or haven't used ginger in those types of broths.

It's ki- it's really, it's amazing 'cause one of my sons doesn't actually quite like ginger, so sometimes I do or don't. And my mom can always tell. She says "Oh, you've forgotten the ginger." So it's for those sorts of palates really obvious. I was wondering then, out of these Chinese flavour concepts, there's a couple of ideas I have.

What do you think is one of the hardest to translate into English or into the kind of Western style without losing something? And would you wanna highlight, perhaps the clusters of flavour concepts that someone is, coming into this should perhaps first understand? So we have the one with the pork broth, which I think's a really great idea.

But yeah, maybe the one which is hardest to translate and what are the ones we should think about first in terms of getting into this?

Fuchsia: Funnily enough, I think the hardest to translate is [xian wei], which is the Chinese for umami. And obviously now umami is becoming familiar, but we use the Japanese word because we don't have an equivalent.

And so I think that in the past, before umami gained currency as a word for these lovely savory tastes of nature, people just used savory, which was very inadequate because it's a beautiful, almost poetic term. In Chinese, the term xian wei originally meant fresh and then came to mean umami, but it still has a connotation of freshness and the beauty of natural ingredients.

And the Chinese character is made up of the sign for fish and the sign for sheep. Originally it was just three fish. But so it's full of cultural meaning. And I think,  umami is now completely embedded in the language of people who care about food in the West, but it's a bit of a shame that we don't recognize that the Chinese also have their own term, which is [xian wei].

So I think to grasp this as a concept is very useful. So again, your second question, because Chinese cooks talk all the timit for some time, possibly adding a bit of ginger, spring onion.

You might add a bit of cured ham, Jinhua ham, which the function is to magnify the [ ], the umami flavours. You might add that it's very useful when you have pale-tasting ingredients like some kind...

…pak choi, Chinese cabbage, winter melon. Trying to think of Western equivalents. But just very lightly flavoured ingredients. If you cook them with something umami, you make them very delicious. So Chinese cooks will often cook vegetables in lard traditionally, particularly in the countryside, or use a little bit of stock to give them umami tastes.

And the same function is performed by little bits of cured pork, which is something that you also find in Italian pasta dishes and Spanish dishes, the use of a little bit of cured pork for umami flavours. Dried shrimps, dried seafood. And if you're vegetarian, you can bring out umami flavours with things like soy sauce, some kind of preserved and pickled vegetables.

Soybeans, if you sprout them and boil them, you get lovely umami tastes. So I think that this, this sort of [ ], umami, is both the most difficult to translate and also one of the most useful in practical terms.

Ben: And what then distinguishes, do you think, a harmonious combination of flavours in a sauce or a dish, rather than a dish or a sauce which just has lots of ingredients thrown together and it somehow doesn't balance?

Is there a kind of concept or way of thinking about that?

Fuchsia: It's difficult to be very precise about it because it's about instinct and the taste of the cook really. But the best example is the delicious Sichuanese guaiwei sauce, strange flavour sauce, which I've included in the book as a sauce for all kinds of things.

Green beans is the main recipe, but also roasted vegetables, cold meats, all kinds of things. And the guaiwei sauce, the whole, the reason it has the name strange flavour is because it uses most of the key seasonings in the Sichuanese pantry all together. But they're meant to be blended so harmoniously, so nothing stands out individually and it doesn't jar.

So you've got the nuttiness of sesame paste, the fragrance of sesame oil, sugar sweetness, vinegar sourness and soy sauce for umami, but the whole point is that it's balanced.

But the other thing is that the concept of harmony also can be present across the whole menu. So if you have something that's very fiercely spicy, like a dish that's [mala] , numbing and hot with chili and Sichuan pepper, that on its own, I don't think you'd really describe that as harmonious.

But if that's one dish in the menu and you also have some, something that's a bit sweet and sour maybe, or a fish fragrant dish with a little bit of spiciness and a very gentle soup, then across the meal you can have a kind of harmony. And it's back to the idea that Chinese food is all about balance, and good Chinese food should not only be really delicious, but it should make you feel very [shifu], very comfortable and well.

Ben: We might come back to this idea that the individual dish might not need to be so balanced, but actually across the meal or across the whole setting that we could have a, a balance wi- within that. But I was quite intrigued as to your makeup of some of these sauces. So we could do it through a dish with a fragrant or strange flavour or maybe even in making a kind of English meat gravy.

But when something tastes wrong or tastes off, and maybe we'll also come to this, this is the experience of the cook when it comes through. Do you think the answer is usually to add another seasoning or to take something away or to start again? Or how should the home cook start thinking about, "Oh, this doesn't taste quite right," how are we balancing it within what we're cooking?

Fuchsia: It depends what it is. I think the key thing is salt. And that's the most important seasoning in a way, and almost every savory dish has salt in it, apart from some very, very gentle soups which might not be salted. And salting is tricky in the sense that it's partly a matter of personal taste and what you're used to.

But it's very much just about the judgment of the cook, and there's no rule on that. But of course it's better to go, you can always add salt later, but you can't really take it away. So if you oversalt a dish, then you have to either add more ingredients to dilute it, it becomes very complicated.

So the thing is to always add ingredients very gingerly. With something like a strange flavour sauce, it's a bit different because you could just, if you made that too salty, you could just dilute it with more sesame paste and a little water. So that's not a problem. And I actually find it really fun making a strange flavour sauce because it's like playing an or- directing an orchestra, conducting an orchestra, and then you just say "shall I bring up a little of this and a little of that?"

And it's just, it can be quite fun and different every time. I think I always en- encourage people to use their palates and use their tongues and use their noses and just judge what tastes good. And I should say that, as a recipe writer, I test the recipes very rigorously.

If I give you a sauce, I will have measured every teaspoon of soy sauce and vinegar, and I hope that means that you'll come up with something that is balanced and tasty. But my hope, at home when I'm cooking, I don't, for most of them, I don't use measurements. And anyway, it's quite fun if you're a home cook to make it, once you've got a grasp of the principles, to make it a little different every time.

Yeah.

Ben: Yeah, for sure. My mom never uses measurements like that, and so she always said, she has a phrase for it "Sometimes you just have to fing-fing, fang-fang," is what she literally tells me. I said, "That's actually not that helpful at this stage in the dish." But that's what we have to do. What I thought of one of the most important judgments in the book, or one of the ideas which comes through, is when to reveal an ingredient's essential flavour, and we've talked about this, I think, the Ben way, or when you transform it through a blended flavour.

And how do you think you might decide which approach to take? 'Cause you can showcase the natural ingredients, you can remove or rebalance these unnatural notes. And I think we mentioned, we can even create new composed flavourings through seasonings and different blendings. And I was interested in your ideas as to when you nudge one to the other, and they come out very clearly in the recipes which one is that.

But I'd be interested in your thoughts on those different ways of judging how to do flavour.

Fuchsia: The traditional Chinese view would be that if you have a perfect ingredient that is just lovely, and in season, and very fresh, that you don't want to mess about with it too much, and the job of the cook is just to show it off.

So that is why Cantonese seafood dishes, for example, are often very understated. So you might have a beautiful fresh fish, and you just steam it with a bit of ginger and maybe spring onion to harmonize the flavour, and finish it with a sizzle of hot oil, little bit of soy sauce. But you really don't need a heavy flavour.

And so I think the snobbish Chinese view is that people who add lots of flavours are very lowbrow. And so Sichuanese cooking has traditionally since it's been spicy, known as a spicy cuisine has been seen as popular but not posh and elevated. So the hearty, spicy cuisines, the traditional Chinese view is that those are the cuisines of people who didn't have very fine ingredients, and they would be eating- wanting something tasty to go with their staple food, maybe rice in the south.

And so they would add all these chilies and spicy seasonings to xiafan to make the rice go down. Whereas rich people and privileged people would have very fine ingredients, and they wouldn't need all these seasonings. And it's quite interesting that not only does that concept carry across cuisines, like the most prestigious cuisines are Cantonese and the cuisine of the Jiangnan region around Shanghai, which are very understated.

But even within regions, so in Sichuan, the working class, docker's food of Chongqing is crazy hot and spicy, and the more elegant food of the old Mandarin officials, for example, understated. So you have things like ji douhua, chicken tofu, which is chicken breast that's whi- pulverized to a sort of puree and then made into set like a kind

So it resembles tofu in a clear broth. That's a classic Sichuan dish, and there's no chili at all. So I would s- I'm not ... I think that good and elegant Sichuanese cooking can combine good ingredients and spicy seasonings as well. But in general the finer the ingredient, the less you want to do with it.

Ben: And in the book, or in your writings in general, you defend this quiet food, this kind of Qingdan food that is clear, gentle, and understated. And do you think in the very best meals then you need dishes or it's great to have dishes which might seem unexciting if eaten on their own? And it's interesting that within English or European traditions you have less of that.

Although, I do remember going to an Italian restaurant and at the end being served a very plain, but really to my mind, delicious consomme, which is the closest I had to the kind of Chinese tradition of that. So what do you think about this sort of gentle and understated food and where is that placed within a meal or within cooking traditions?

Fuchsia: Yeah. I think it's not just, I think you mentioned just then, very elevated meals. But it's not, even just everyday meals in China will normally include say in Sichuan, you might have spicy dishes. Almost always you have a very plain, under-seasoned light broth to cleanse the palate and to balance the spicy dishes.

You almost always have plain white rice, not even salted. So I think that this is, it's a bit of a it's a way in which Westerners often misunderstand Chinese food that a typical bunch of Westerners go to a Chinese restaurant and they just order the exciting dishes, and they order egg fried rice or fried noodles to go with the food, and they order they are much less likely to order, a very plain stir-fried vegetable or a light broth.

And this is a sort of misunderstanding of the whole purpose and the whole principle of Chinese cooking, which again, is balance and health and making you feel good. And so in a good Chinese menu, you always have understated dishes. And yeah, you can say they're boring, but that's the whole point.

They're not meant to be stimulating and exciting. They're meant to soothe you. They're meant to calm you. They're meant to balance the other dishes. And that's one of the lessons that I think it took me quite, quite a long time to learn with Chinese food, 'cause in the beginning, I always gravitated to the more exciting dishes on their own.

But now I just love the way a well-balanced Chinese menu makes you feel. And part of that is soup. I found a much greater appreciation and appetite for soup, and I love soup, and I want to have soup all the time. And that's something which is, you don't really find you don't really find in Western cooking, but almost every Chinese meal has a soup.

Even if you go to a street stall and get a plate of fried noodles for your lunch, there'll probably be a bowl of broth to cleanse the palate. If you have some noodles in northern China, you may be offered some mientang, noodle water. The broth from cooking the noodles to smooth the throat and cleanse the palate, and that's taken unseasoned.

Yeah, so I do. I think the way we translate qingdan into English is usually bland or insipid, which are pejorative words in English. They just sound uninteresting. But actually qingdan is a beautiful term. It's lovely. It just makes me feel calm thinking about it.

Ben: Yeah, we should rethink that, and that's to our earlier point that you're, we can balance something across the whole meal and the whole menu, and if you have a whole meal or just dishes which are just explosive, then you've lost the balance.

You've lost some of the interesting things and the tension. And I was reading this anecdote you had within the book or your writing around the, I think maybe it's the only place that I know, but in China, even in something which is a fast food place like a KFC, you might go in there for your greasy, "Oh my God, this is the only thing I can have at 2:00 AM fried chicken."

But they might also offer you some basic broth, maybe made from a stock cube or something, but something to balance that even within something like a KFC meal. So do you have that across many fast food places in China, and is essentially that part of this concept within balance within that?

Fuchsia: Yeah. Yeah, so there's actually, in my book, there's a, a, a sort of a homemade version of this rather lovely vegetable soup they have in KFC, and its freeze-dried vegetables in a light broth with wisps of egg.

And it is very lovely, and it makes a KFC meal in China much more healthy and balanced than it is in the West. But I think in, in, in many fast food restaurants you have the option of getting a set menu. And fast food, by fast food I don't just mean American fast food, food options in airports and stations and things and school dinners, and you often get a tray with a few different dishes, but almost always part of that will be a light soup. And I think this is an aspect of Chinese cuisine which is not reflected in Chinese restaurants in the West, because the sort of old-school British and American Chinese food, all the soups were what the Chinese would call a geng, like a thick stew soup.

So things like sweet corn and chicken, sweet corn and crabs, sour and hot soup, which are much more substantial and much more like dishes than a light broth. And those beautiful light broths, every Cantonese meal practically has a light broth, but they very rarely feature on Cantonese restaurant menus in the West, I think because your average Westerner probably thinks it's a bit boring and a bit watery.

Why should I spend money on a clear liquid, instead of some exciting fried chicken?

Ben: Yes, we don't quite get it, and it's the same for those vegetable dishes. There's fewer. In fact, in some of the Cantonese restaurants I go to, you often have to ask what's fresh vegetable and things?"

It's not necessarily put on the menu high up, because it's perhaps a little bit expensive for the Western view of, "Oh, these just should be a side dish on the thing," without understanding actually it's a really important part of the menu or the balanced dish, and I would put soups in that category as well I was thinking also the book concentrates a lot on flavour, but it does mention something that we spoke about last time as well, which is the importance of flavour and texture.

So I was interested in that. Are there any particular flavours that you think also naturally belong and pair with texture? And o- obviously, in the West, we are, I would say, a little bit behind in thinking about texture compared to the mouth feel that we think about in Asia. So how should we think about composing flavour and texture and, maybe some of the recipes or things that we could try out in the book as a kind of easy way into texture or texture and flavour?

Fuchsia: Yeah. I think so. In Chinese terms, a good meal is all about variety. So you typically have several separate dishes at a Chinese meal, and the whole point is that they're varied. So if you have one dish where you have, say, meat that's stewed in dark soy sauce, a red braised dish, then you might have something else that's bright green or pale in color.

So colors, flavours you want to have bold flavours and light flavours. You also want to have food that looks visually varied. So if you have one ingredient that's cut into chunks, maybe another will be cut into slivers or shreds. So there are all these different dimensions of variety, and the more variety in your menu, the lovelier the meal, and your palate doesn't get bored as you roam from dish to dish, and you try this, a bit of that, and a b- bit of this.

And texture is another dimension of that. It's partly related to how things are cut. So the feeling of a strandy, shredded ingredient in your mouth is different from biting into a cube of meat, for example. But also, there are h- there's a whole world of textures. And texture is an essential part of the appreciation of food for most Chinese people.

And the range of textures people enjoy is much wider than it is for most Westerners. So there are all these sorts of glutinous, sticky, huggy textures, very much enjoyed. Slithery, crisp, slimy, gristly. So here we're going into words which don't sound very nice in English, but denote textures that Chinese people love eating.

But all these add to the variety. So if you have a meal, for example, in which everything is soft and mushy in texture, that's not as exciting as if you have something that's soft and mushy, something that's succulent and a bit juicy, and something that's crisp, and something that's slithery.

Wet and dry, different mouth feels. Yes, and I ... I always encourage people who would like to appreciate Chinese food more to just play with texture. Just try putting things in your mouth and just considering them. Put aside all your prejudices. Put a bit, start chewing a chicken's foot and using your teeth and tongue to take away the little bits of skin and cartilage, and crunch the cartilage, and just try not to make any judgment.

Just experience it in a sensory way, and I think that's the way in to realizing that texture's this whole other dimension to be explored. So yes, in terms of flavour and texture, I think slippery, crisp things like jellyfish, wood ear mushrooms, particularly lovely with sour tastes. There's a sort of briskness, refreshing briskness to them.

And then deep-fried things, particularly nice with sort of spicy tastes, numbing and hot, mala. Very good combination. And yeah, so I've given some suggestions for where texture and flavour might relate together. But I think if you want to have a go at experiencing the kind of textures that are very essential to Chinese cooking, but less for Westerners, then one ingredient I would really encourage people to try is the dried wood ear mushrooms. You can buy them in any Chinese supermarket.

You just soak them in water for a while, and then rinse and blanch them, and then you can put them into salads and stir-fries. And it's an ingredient that has virtually no flavour. It's all about the texture. But it has that quality that Chinese people love, which is that it's smooth and slippery, but a bit crisp at the same time.

I c- I think of these as edible oxymorons, contradictory textures. But it's just a mushroom. It's not some bit of offal. So I don't think most people have a problem with that. So that's a really good ingredient to try. And in the book I have a dish which I've called Italian wood ear mushroom salad because I made a version...

So n- the, there's also a version which is the typical Chinese one where you use rice vinegar, and garlic, and sesame oil, and chili. But I've done one with olive oil, and wine vinegar, and parsley which I made up for fun one day, and it was really delicious. So I put that in the book. But there again, you have the slippery texture, and the briskness of vinegar, and the sharpness of garlic, and it's quite an invigorating dish.

The other ingredient that's really fun to play around with is jellyfish. 'Cause if you haven't had jellyfish before, it sounds a bit scary and extreme. But actually jellyfish is just, it's just pure texture. It's the kind of jellyfish that you can buy in packets ready to eat in most Chinese supermarkets, it's just sheets of transparent slipperiness with a little crispness.

And there's one, one of my favorite recipes in the book is a white radish daikon salad. So delicious, so Chinese. But I often add some shredded jellyfish to that, and that just adds another lovely dimension of texture that goes very nicely with the crispness of the radish

Ben: That sounds all lovely.

So the dried mushrooms, jellyfish if you want to try textures, and pairing them with all of these flavours where something, the variety, is giving us the loveliness as well as the flavours. So putting this all together, perhaps inspired by your book or other recipe ideas that you have, say I am returning from an English farmer's market or a supermarket, say, we can decide what it is, but perhaps I have a fish or some chicken or whatever's on best special offer, and I have some classic things, tomatoes, cucumbers, beans, aubergines, mushrooms, eggs, and the like, and I have the basic Chinese store cupboard, rice, tofu or however and perhaps we're gonna cook this tonight or on the weekend.

How would you think about maybe turning some of that into a dinner for four or six people? How should we go about deciding, and then what are the kinda couple of recipes or whatever that you might suggest for me?

Fuchsia: So the first thing is that traditionally with a Chinese menu, you'll have about the same number of dishes as people.

So if you're cooking for four or six people, four or six dishes. But if that's too much, I don't think you have to be conventional about it. You could just make four dishes for six people, but scale up quantities. The important thing to remember is that don't try and scale up quantities for stir-fry dishes, 'cause the whole point is you have a sort of limited amount of ingredients that you chase around a hot wok and they get hot very fast.

And particularly with a domestic cooker, if you double up or triple up, it's not going to work. It's going to lose that heat and speed that's essential to a stir-fry. So if you want to scale up dishes, then make stews or cold dishes, which you can make as much as you like. The other thing is that with Chinese ideas, you can often make several differences.

So whereas a Western cook might put everything together in a stew and then have a salad on the side, in China you're more likely to separate ingredients and group them and then have several different dishes. But I, this is what I do every weekend. I go to the farmer's market and come back with things and think what to do with them.

So I would say I always recommend including some cold dishes because they can be sensationally different, d- sensationally delicious, and you can make them in advance, so they really lessen the load of cooking for a bunch of people. And some of them are very nice for a day or two in the fridge as well.

So we've already mentioned the strange flavour sauce, and that's one of my standbys, 'cause it's so delicious. And so the main recipe is those sorts of fresh green beans which are, when they're in season, just top and tail them, boil them, refresh them in cold water, and then when you're ready, cover them in fish fragrant sauce and some toasted sesame seeds.

Delicious. You can use the same sauce with roasted cauliflower, really nice with cold chicken, with cold noodles, all kinds of things. There's another sauce that I invented in this book which is so delicious. So it's basically a French vinaigrette, but I added some Chinese fermented tofu, which gives it this wonderful creaminess and umami depth. The main recipe in the book is a version of the French leek vinaigrette, you know, leeks.

But I also serve it just as a salad dressing with lettuce. Crazy delicious. And it's also really nice just over sliced tomatoes, in half an avocado, on practically anything. So that's another sauce, and I would just see what vegetables I've got- come back with. And then you can also do Western cooking with Chinese flavours.

So for example one of the recipes in the book is for chicken joints, which are marinated in Sichuanese chili bean paste and other spicy seasonings, and then simply roasted in an oven, which is not really a Chinese home cooking method, but very delicious, very easy to make. M- marinated in advance and roasted it.

And also, as an English person, of course, I was brought up on potatoes, and I love potatoes, and roast potatoes especially. But I've got a really delicious recipe for roast potatoes tossed with all kinds of exciting spices, a bit mala, a bit of cumin, and herbs. It was really delicious. Yeah, but I think the main thing is just decide how many dishes you want to make realistically.

Minimize stir-frying if you're cooking for a group at home. And then just, yeah, think of different sauces and what they might go with. I've put... With all the recipes, some of them, there is a main recipe, but I've put suggestions for other ingredients, and the whole purpose with this book really was to encourage people to think in terms of flavours and then to be very playful and flexible about actually how to apply them.

Ben: Yeah, you have some really wonderful ideas in that. If, and if I recall correctly, there was a, a, a potato rice type of dish that I wanted to try out, or there was one where you're mixing two starches, which I hadn't come across. And I was thinking in terms of, I, I guess this is under personal creativity, but when you think about creating a new recipe or some new ideas, how does that come about?

There's gonna be a bit of everything, but is it, an ingredient, a remembered dish, this flavour template that we have, technique, a, a curiosity, and how does it come about? And maybe you could highlight a dish or two in the book through that. I s- I seem to recall this potato rice dish, but I mean that.

Now and how do we think about starting when you're creating new recipes?

Fuchsia: Oh. I'm just someone who thinks about food all the time. So sometimes I would literally, while writing this book, I would just wake up in the morning and think, "Let's try this. Wouldn't that be great?" Sometimes it's provoked by ingredients, so going to the market and thinking, "What can I do with kohlrabi, which would be really nice?"

And there's a recipe in the book where I've done a kohlrabi salad with spring onion oil, which is a Shanghainese thing that they normally or more commonly do with a daikon white radish, but I've done it with kohlrabi. So sometimes it was just seeing what's available. And also there's a carrot salad- And carrot is used in Chinese cooking, but usually as a supplementary ingredient for its nice color.

It's rarely the main ingredient. But I've got a carrot salad there which has a spicy Szechuanese sauce, and that was actually an idea that my sister-in-law gave me because I'd made a lovely... What did I make? I made one salad, maybe with the daikon radish, for a family party, and she said, "Wouldn't this be nice with carrots?"

And so I tried it with carrot, and it was great. So yes, and sometimes it's just one ingredient that I think is incredibly underappreciated in the West is fermented tofu, right? So this is tofu that has been allowed to grow a coat of mold, and then tossed with salt and alcohol and sometimes spices, and then cured.

And it's a bit like a blue cheese. It's rather like Roquefort in its salty intensity. But it has this amazing salty, rich umami flavour and a creamy texture. And at a time when people are wanting to make more plant-based foods that satisfy the sensory requirements of people who normally eat meat, dairy fermented tofu is just this magic ingredient.

It just adds a richness, a creaminess to vegetable dishes, stir-fries and, as I mentioned, vinaigrette dressing, which is a non-conventional application. So with that, I think I was thinking a lot about the fermented tofu and what can I do with it, and I started adding it to other dishes and ingredients that I had never seen in China, but I just thought, "Let's try it and see if it works."

And it's quite fun. So this book, because some of my books have been, like I did, a Szechuanese cookbook, and that was all about really trying to faithfully reflect the way people cook in Szechuan. And I wanted to take myself out of the equation and just report on food from Sichuan. This book is more personal.

This is just having fun and experimenting.

Ben: That really comes across. And now I've remembered it. It's smothered rice with pork and potatoes, so it's not quite rice potatoes. And I think you also mentioned within it, you could, you do it, you could try pancetta as some of that lard we mentioned, and you can add fried porcini, in mushroom season, which would not be a classical Chinese ingredient, obviously an Italian ingredient.

So that really comes through. And I think another thing I really love about your writing is that your recipes and food all tend to always recall, one of your travels or a particular person and a place, but then it travels with you and to us through that into some expression of whatever you're thinking.

And I'm interested in how much of a recipe is intertwined with particular people and places and how that travels. And maybe over the years of Chinese food or thinking about food, what has perhaps changed for you, maybe not maybe the most, but changed over that time in terms of what you pay attention to or your palate or some of the influences of people in place and how much does that influence when you're thinking about recipes or the recipes that you bring to people?

Fuchsia: The whole purpose of all my work is to try to encourage readers to appreciate not only the food, but the culture, and the place, and the people who make it. And I've been lucky to have met... I've had many adventures and met many fantastic people in China, some of them very good friends, some of them just chance acquaintances who've shared a recipe with me.

And so it's very much part of my research, and it's very much part of, yeah of the recipes. When I'm in China, I just meet people all the time. I talk to them about food. I write down everything, not just recipes, but also observations, what things that people tell me. Sometimes recipes, oral recipes, explained by a taxi driver during a short journey, and sometimes I've been in the kitchen with someone, watching them cook.

But all that is part of trying to, yeah, in- introduce people to the culture as I've met it as well. And yeah, and for me, there are some recipes when I make them. I think of particular people and places, and that's part of the pleasure of cooking. And so again, in this book, it's a sort of funny mixture because some of the recipes are, directly my attempts to recreate someone, something someone showed me or fed me in China and that, you'll hear about the place or the person.

And others, I just made up i- in London. So it's a mixture. But yeah, I think in terms of my method, for many years I've been writing everything down, and I think that I learnt quite early on that the more I recorded in the field, the more I would appreciate it later. So I write everything down, and when I'm writing an article or writing a book, I have 170 or 80 notebooks full of my notes and things from 30 years of work.

And so this is all very useful. And I suppose what's changed is just that now I'm a much more experienced cook. Sometimes I taste something delicious and I don't really need someone to explain the whole method. I just need to ask one or two key questions, and then I'll be able to have a go at recreating it myself.

So yeah, and sometimes I'll just grasp what the recipe is about w- without ev- just from eating something. So I think that the process of recreating recipes... 'Cause 'cause I don't really use written recipes for my books. It's not like someone in China gives me a piece of paper with a recipe.

As you mentioned with your own mother, so many people cook intuitively, and they don't measure things. So what I do is I taste something and write down my observations about the dish, or I watch someone in their kitchen and I write down my own approximations of how much of something. And then, the process of researching the book and writing the recipes is actually trying to re-engineer the recipe in my own kitchen.

But I... it's got easier with experience.

Ben: That really comes through in your writing as well, when you've observed people in their own kitchen. 'Cause there is this, Chinese cooks talk about this art of fire and timing, and my mom always goes on and on about how you hear or how you smell or how you see something.

And I'm often, "I have to come and watch you because I can't, I'm not quite even enough experienced to do that." And I know you've been around and looked at particular techniques, and in fact, there's Chinese characters, I'm sure, which are specific to these kinds of techniques or regions which don't necessarily even translate onto that.

So I was intrigued, what should a cook, maybe starting out, or even one fully formed in the home, be thinking about how to incorporate smelling, hearing, and seeing and all of that into your practice as to that's the kind of art? And I often liken this to a carpenter.

So you can- see a carpenter's spreadsheet, and maybe you can even watch them on YouTube. But there's nothing like being with a carpenter or trying to actually make something yourself. There's this whole other gap of knowledge which just seemed to be a kind of learnt or lived experience, and I was wondering about your thoughts on the importance of that.

Fuchsia: Yeah, very important, and I always do incorporate it in my recipes. So I don't believe that it's helpful to say heat some oil, add the garlic, and cook it for 20 seconds, and then add this. Because 20 seconds, what does that mean? It depends on how thick the wok is, how hot the flame is, how much garlic you...

There are all these different variables and if you just do it for exactly 20 seconds in different conditions, you'll get a different result. It's much better to, to tell people, cook it until you can smell the garlic losing its raw edge of flavour and becoming very mellow and aromatic but not changing color.

So if you give readers s- sort of observations about what they should be looking out for and smelling, and in some cases hearing then I think that's much more useful for actually learning to judge. And of course, you get better at it with experience. But that's part of the fun and the satisfaction of cooking.

With the ear thing, I would say a classic method is when you steam a fish. A very beautiful Cantonese technique is then you steam your fish and then you strew over some very finely shredded ginger and spring onions. And then you heat some oil, and you pour it over. And what you want to do is have the oil so hot that as soon as you put a drop on the ginger and spring onions, they s- they hiss and sizzle, and a jet of steam comes up, and a lovely smell.

And if you don't heat the oil hot enough, then it just ends up feeling greasy, and the ginger and spring onions will be raw. You won't have woken up to their flavours. And so you do need to get the oil hot enough, and the only way to know that it's hot enough is to get that sizzle. And so you can either have an old scrap of spring onion and just dip it in the oil, and w- as soon as it enters, if it goes shh, then you know the oil's hot enough, you pour it over your fish.

Or you can, use a ladle to drop a few drops onto your fish, and you want that immediate violent hiss. Yeah it is part of the fun of cooking, and I do try to guide people to how they should be observing what's going on in the pot.

Ben: That reminds me of hearing someone who does a lot of deep-frying and how they can tell by the sound of the batter and how low the batter drops u- up and down what the temperature and how they do, and then which ingredient they should do for which thing because different ingredients have different things with...

And that's all done by sight, sound, and however.

Great. I thought I'd do a little section of overrated, underrated, or correctly rated, and then we'll finish up with a couple of final questions. So I was wondering, overrated, underrated, or correctly rated nowadays hot pots

Fuchsia: Overrated.

I'm not a big fan of hot pot. Hot pot is a really fun way to eat, but I just, I just think that there's a tendency to have what I call the hot pot-ification of Chinese communities abroad, because hot pot is a much easier business to do than a restaurant with wok cooking, because you just need a master broth, and you need some workers to slice up ingredients.

You don't really need cooks. While I think hot pot is great fun once in a while, I think if all Chinese restaurants turn into hot pot restaurants, that would be a terrible tragedy.

Ben: Yes. I see another hot pot restaurant in London, I'm always a little bit sad. It's like, "Oh, it could have been something else, not that, that."

Great. Steaming as a technique. Overrated, underrated?

Fuchsia: Underrated in the West. In China, it's correctly rated, 'cause everyone- Yeah ... steams everything all the time. But I think that in the West, you may think of steaming dumplings or, at best, a fish. But you can steam all kinds of things, and you can even...

I don't have a microwave, so when I want to reheat leftovers, I put them in little dishes on a sort of metal grill in my wok and steam them with a lid. Yeah. Chinese microwave. Yeah.

Ben: Yes. So w- when I was at university, which is really my age, like a long time ago, over two decades my peers just thought I was crazy to steam a fish.

But I said "I steam a fish in this throwaway wok. You can, you only need a ring." We only had two electric rings, and it cooks so quickly that it's faster than all of these other dishes that you're trying to do. By the time you've cooked your pasta and even done your sauce, I'm equal, and that.

So steaming, definitely underrated. And you take away- And also- Go on ...

Fuchsia: One other thing about steaming is that it's very clean. If you're cooking with oil, there's a certain amount of mess. Steaming is just beautifully clean. You don't make any mess at all, and it's a really lovely way of cooking fresh ingredients.

Ben: Yes, and that's another thing, 'cause you didn't set off the possible alarm if you were doing- ... that. So it was- Yes ... they would say "This is crazy." I was like, "No, this is actually really simple," dorm cooking. So it did win me a lot of friends, but initially, they thought it was very crazy to steam, steam fish.

And in those days, fish was also quite cheap. So this is over two decades ago, at least where we got it from our own farmers market. In any case you stole my next underrated, overrated but I'll still ask it anyway, which was microwaves, underrated or overrated?

Fuchsia: I haven't much experience of them, so I'm not really sure.

But I would say my limited knowledge of them, a bit overrated as a cooking item. Okay for- Yeah ... heating things up, but I really like using traditional methods for flavour.

Ben: Sure. Air fryers, overrated, underrated? Do you have an air fryer? I guess you don't have a microwave, so you probably don't have an air fryer as microwaves.

Fuchsia: No, I'm the wrong person to ask because I'm not a gadget person.

Ben: Yeah. I simply

Fuchsia: like my Chinese knife, chopping board. That's it.

Ben: Yeah. And when, I, this got, I got this from your last book, but when in domestic Chinese households, when did ovens actually start appearing? Because if you go back in history, this, steaming because if you wanted roast meats, you'd probably go around to the roast meat place rather than do it in your own home.

So I don't know whether the air fryer is just one of our sort of expressions with that. But yeah, ro- roasting in ovens was actually relatively new in domestic Chinese households.

Fuchsia: Yeah, when I was a student in China in the '90s, nobody had ovens at home. They just weren't part of the thing. You just cooked, over, over gas really.

And yeah, so I think now that baking has become a sort of lifestyle hobby thing. Yeah. And so you do have fitted kitchens now, and you have ovens, and you have people baking for fun baking Western cakes and things. Yeah. Yeah, very recent to be part of domestic cooking.

Ben: Great. And then the last one on this tasting menu, overrated or underrated?

Fuchsia: I don't think they're either overrated or underrated. I think they're food as a form of art and performance and experience, which is absolutely fantastic once in a while with an accomplished chef showing you what they can do. But it's also a sort of intensive and quite exhausting way of eating.

So it's just not normal... it would certainly be overrated for an everyday way of eating. Yeah. But for a special treat, I think tasting menus can be fabulous.

Ben: Sure. Overrated every day, underrated if you've never never been to one and you're into food.

Fuchsia: Yeah. W- when I was younger, I remember when I was privileged to have my first experience of tasting menus with great chefs, it was an absolutely glorious experience, like going to some great opera.

And I think that I have had enough now that I wouldn't, I don't have a great compulsion to taste tasting menus, but for an experience they can be incredible

Ben: Yes, I think I was the same. Particularly I hadn't realized all of these extra pieces that you get with something like that, which is even the shape of your dish or how they've decided to present it and the order and all of these other things, which essentially is a, it's a cultural expression like you have in art or in theater and the like.

Which you, again, probably wouldn't do every day. But as this form of cultural expression in any food culture, actually, I think it's really fascinating to see, particularly with someone who has an expressional way that they're doing it in terms of their art.

Fuchsia: Yeah. And I think people sometimes, they're very, there's a tendency to pass judgment on things as if it's either/or, and it's not. The best thing to do is to eat more simply for most of your life and occasionally have a tasting menu. Yeah. And that's very, it's very simple to have both, really.

Ben: Yeah. And it goes both ways in terms of you shouldn't ignore street food either.

You probably shouldn't eat street food every day either. But to ignore snacking or snacks or street food again, I think would be y- yeah would make, lessen your food and life experience, for sure. Great. So the final last couple of questions would be any particular current projects or curiosities that you're working on?

Obviously, there'll be a lot of work around the launch of your new book, but anything else that you're working on that you'd like to share?

Fuchsia: Oh Chinese food has become a lifelong project, and so I've got various things that I'm working on at the moment, different regions, trying to deepen my knowledge and thinking about the next book.

Ben: Yeah. Great. And perhaps we can end on any open thoughts you have or advice, perhaps advice for an ordinary home cook. I say ordinary, but just someone cooking at home. Or perhaps you have some thoughts about what it is to be a food writer today. But any final thoughts that you'd like to share on your food writing?

Fuchsia: I think one thing is that people sometimes find Chinese cooking intimidating, and they think you need a lot of special equipment and special ingredients, and you really don't. Chinese cuisine is hugely complex and sophisticated, but it has everything from very complex and labor-intensive banquet cooking to simple dishes that you can knock up in five minutes after work.

And Chinese food, also contrary to the traditional Western stereotype, can be fantastically healthy and life-enhancing. So I think I would just encourage people to just give it a go. Buy a couple of seasonings, have a go and you'll find it I can almost guarantee life-enhancing and delicious and fun.

Ben: Excellent. So with that, I'll remind listeners that her new book is Five Tastes: The Magic of flavour in the Chinese Kitchen. And with that, Fuchsia, thank you very much.

Fuchsia: Thank you.

Matt Lodder on Tattoos, Memory and the History Written on Skin

Matt Lodder on Tattoos as Art History

Art historian and author Matt Lodder joins Ben Yeoh to explain why tattoo history is not a niche subject, but a way into art history, class, colonialism, gender, fashion, technology, archives, and the stories societies choose to preserve or forget.

Matt is the author of Painted People: Humanity in 21 Tattoos and Tattoos: The Untold History of a Modern Art, and co-host of Beneath the Skin, a podcast that explores history through the lens of tattooing.

In this episode, Matt argues that tattoos have often been misunderstood because the historical record overrepresents people whose bodies were monitored: sailors, soldiers, prisoners and other surveilled groups. Meanwhile, tattooing among women, the middle classes, queer communities and “ordinary” people was often hidden under clothing, poorly documented, or preserved only in private archives.

The conversation moves from Matt’s childhood fascination with tattooing to the art-historical questions that animate his work. Rather than asking only whether tattoos are “art”, why people get tattooed, or what a tattoo “means”, Matt asks what tattoos reveal about style, taste, authorship, technology, reception and power.

They discuss myths around Captain Cook, the strange archival afterlives of tattooed skin, the invention of electric tattooing, Instagram’s acceleration of trends, AI-generated tattoo aesthetics, eye tattooing, and why museums still struggle to preserve an art form carried on living bodies.

It is a conversation about tattoos, but also about how culture gets remembered, flattened, misread and rediscovered.

Key takeaways

  • Tattoo history is a way of reading wider human history, because tattoos sit at the intersection of image, body, identity, fashion, technology and social judgement.

  • Many tattoo myths persist because archives preserve the bodies of people who were surveilled, while more private or ordinary tattooing often left fewer records.

  • Matt pushes against the narrow question of whether tattoos are “art”, arguing that art history is more useful when it asks about style, authorship, taste and reception.

  • Tattooing was not simply “discovered” by Europeans through Captain Cook. That story reflects later colonial myth-making more than historical reality.

  • Instagram has not changed the basic fact that people copy visual culture, but it has radically accelerated the life cycle of tattoo trends.

  • AI tattoo imagery is technically influential, but Matt is sceptical of its aesthetics and ethics, especially when it shortcuts artistic authorship.

  • Matt’s practical advice: ask tattooed people who did the work, look at healed portfolios, choose artists by style, and do not treat people’s bodies as public property.

Summary contents, transcript and podcast links below. Listen on Apple, Spotify or wherever you listen to pods. Video above or on Youtube.

Contents

00:00 Meet Matt Lodder
00:36 Why tattoos tell history
03:27 Misunderstood tattoos
10:49 The art history lens
19:48 Performance art and the body
23:12 Writing Painted People
28:28 Unfinished tattoo mysteries
31:59 Myths, Captain Cook and cultural amnesia
39:28 Archives, access and private collections
42:02 Medical curiosities and preserved skin
42:31 Lost tattooed skin
43:56 The electric tattoo breakthrough
45:23 Museums misplacing history
46:32 How Instagram speeds tattoo trends
52:13 The internet and flattened styles
54:23 AI tattoo aesthetics
58:38 Overrated / underrated
01:00:50 Tattoos in museums
01:03:55 Eye tattooing risks
01:05:42 Current and future projects
01:07:13 Better questions to ask about tattoos
01:12:44 Closing and Ben’s tattoo confession

Transcript (lightly edited with AI so mistakes are possible)

Ben: Hey, everybody. I am super excited to be speaking to Matt Lauder. Matt is a historian of art. He's the author of Painted People: Humanity in 21 Tattoos, and also the author of Tattoos: The Untold History of a Modern Art. Both are brilliant books, which I found fascinating in how they treat tattoos as a story of being human.

He co-hosts his own podcast, Beneath The Skin, which looks at the history of everything through the lens of tattoos. Matt, welcome.

Matt: Hi, thanks for having me.

Ben: When and how did you first realize that tattoo history and tattoos in general was a way of telling the history of almost everything?

Matt: That's a good question.

I think when I, ... i- I've been fascinated with tattooing, tattooing itself and tattoos for a long time. And I didn't do history at school. I didn't do GCSE history or eight level history. I didn't ... I've got a PhD in art history now, but I didn't have any undergraduate or master's degree in art history.

So I had no ... It wasn't like I had a big wide ranging interest in history per se that then translated into a histori- into a historical interest. It really was the other way around. I got fascinated with tattoos from a very young age, and wanted to figure out as much as I can about them. And then I found my way through a kind of fairly circuitous, although it makes sense in hindsight the route to doing a PhD in art history.

And I think what you realize when you start understanding what art history is exactly that, right? We're not just art historians, not just interested in pretty pictures from the past. It's different from art criticism in that way. We're not just interested in whether a painting or a sculpture is good or bad.

But we're interested in what we would call, the indexicality of a work of art, right? So the basic kind of practice of art history is to figure out what works of art tell us about people and places in the past. And I realized, without really, cynically sitting down to, to do it this way, my, my questions about tattoos and where they came from or what they told us about tattoo people were also then really, interesting ways into thinking about human stories and cultural historical stories from a wide range of the human past, right?

If you can ... the way I used to explain it, if you can tell something about the past by looking at paintings in museums and churches and country houses, that must be also and perhaps particularly true for the images that people carry on their bodies. And yeah, when I sat down to write my first book and I was talking with the publisher and the agent about what kind of thing would work telling a story that wasn't just about the history of tattooing, but was about what tattooing could tell us about people and places in the past was a way into it.

But I came here really initially from a very ... literally childlike. I was literally a child who thought that tattoos were cool, and like 40 years later, here we are.

Ben: And they're still cool.

Matt: Yeah, exactly. Or people could tell me they're not, which is also part of the interesting, trajectory of tattoo history, whether

Where ... People ask me often. I speak to journalists and people ask me if tattoos are cool and I said, look if I could tell you answer that question, I wouldn't be a historian. I'd be a presentist, a- and I certainly wouldn't be a middle-aged man. You don't ask middle-aged men what's cool.

Ben: Yeah. I guess that's the problem is that some Facebook and social media isn't cool because now your dad is on it. And if your mom and dad are on it, how c- how can that, by definition, be cool? Exactly. I'm interested in how you came to it, partly because I have the impression that tattoos are still misunderstood.

I'd be interested if you think that they are misunderstood. And if they are, why in your mind are they so persistently misunderstood? And I don't know whether you'd hint at some of the biggest misunderstandings that you think you come across.

Matt: Yeah. It's, again it's mis- it was misunderstandings really that dr- that drove me here.

I've told this truth before, but I'll tell it to your listeners too. When I was a kid I got told ... I, basically, I was born in 1980. I was growing up in the early 1980s and seeing basically WWF- WLF wrestlers like The Undertaker, with cool tattoos and rock bands like Guns and Roses with cool tattoos.

And started as many young kids still do today to start scribbling on my arms with Byro and Felt Penn, and explaining it slightly to my mom and dad what called tattoos I wanted to get when I was older. And my grandparents sat me down and told me two stories, both intended to, to put me off, right?

One was the story of my grandfather, who was a Dutchman, submariner in the Dutch Navy in the then Dutch East Indies in World War II, and he told me a story that he was drunk on his rum ration somewhere in Jakarta in the early 1940s as they ... And he woke up just as they were about to tattoo a fly on the end of his nose.

So he told me and he woke up just in time and escaped the ignominy of having a facial tattoo, which is even more hilarious. It would be even more holistic if you knew my grandfather. He was a very austere, very stern, sensible kind of guy. And so that, in a way, is a quite familiar story.

I think that the drunken sailor and the regretful, youthful mistake i- is a fairly familiar story. My grandmother, though, told me another story about her mother, so she was born in England, but grew up in Australia. Her mother was the, grew up in Kent, the daughter of a tenant farmer in the early part of the t- early part of the 20th century, late part of the 19th century.

And she'd said that her mother, so my great-grandmother had a tattoo, which came about because one day her brother came home one day with a tattoo machine and said, "Hey, sis, can I tattoo you? " And she said, "Will it come off?" And he said, "Yes." So she apparently had her initials tattooed on her wrist and obviously hated it and regretted it.

And again, in a way, it's this story of a kind of youthful regret. But as I got older and jumped in those puddles, so to speak, you tell a kid not to do something and they'll get obsessed with it, as at least I did. I, as a bookish lad, I went looking for books about tattoo history and the late, the 90s in particular was what I now know as an academic of this period, we call the culporeal turn in the humanities, lots of real interest in the body in the 90s, lots of gender theory and racial theory and that sort of interest tallied into interest in tattooing as well.

And so when I got to university and I was starting to get tattooed and pierced and body modified as well I was just getting all the books I could find from the library at the university I was at and then on interlibrary loan about tattooing. And they all hinted at least in some senses towards that drunken sailor story of my grandfather, but didn't

The story of, like, where my great uncle got a tattoo machine from as a tenant farmer's child in Edwardian Kent I was like, "Where's that story?" And then moreover, as I was getting more and more tattooed and hanging around with tattooed people, the kind of only tattoos, t- only criminals and tailors get tattoos kind of thing I was reading was making less and less sense.

And I think w- to properly answer your question, I think the misconceptions have come from really a lack of visibility of the kind of stories of my great-grandmothers. I now know that, for example, tattoo machines were sold in Edwardian London in essentially department stores.

Whether or not that was the kind of machine that my great uncle had, I don't know, but, th- those catalogs, for example, were not in any museums I looked for, or libraries. The vernacular history in general, let alone tattooing, is not very well preserved and tattooing, of quote unquote regular people, is just not recorded anywhere.

It's not, you have to look very hard for it, at least. But what you do find if you're an academic who's interested in tattoo history, and this has been going on really since the middle of the 19th century when tattoos became a kind of important part of various branches of anthropology and criminology and sociology research.

If you're looking for tattoos in libraries and museums, what you find is tattoos on surveilled populations, criminals, because their bodies get recorded because if you run away, they wanna be able to check that they've got the right person and on sailors for similar reasons. So I think a huge part really, and we're talking, I'm talking about with, Western tattoo history a huge part of the misconception is just that most of it has not been visible.

Literally, it's been under clothing a- as well as being subcultural, and it hasn't been recorded in a way that was available to academics of prior generations. I think the other thing as well, to complete that thought is that tattooing is something that I think if you ha- if you are tattooed, or even if you understand the desire to be tattooed it's not that weird.

There is something ... I hesitate to use the words inherent, but it will do. There's something inherent about that desire to get tattooed if you have it or even if you don't, I think you can understand it. But for someone who doesn't want or have that desire to be tattooed, it looks painful.

So, it looks like why would you get something permanent on your body when you're gonna be, it's gonna be out of fashion in whatever time, and it's gonna make your life more difficult, it's gonna interfere with your job prospects. The questions that non-tattooed people ask tattooed people, does it hurt?

What will your mom think of it and what will you do when you're older? I think they are saying psychological insights as well into the kind of misconceptions about this practice. 'Cause as I talked about in both books- there's the wrong question to ask.

Why do you wanna get tattooed is the wrong question, at least for me.

Ben: Yeah. Reflecting on that, it feels a little bit like, I think people will probably understand if you say, why do people wanna dance? You dance from young, you have this impulse, probably quite a hard thing to put into words, but people, people- Yeah.

would get. And I'm interested that you come at an art history lens because like you say, there's being anthropologists, sociologists, blah, blah, you've got a high art, low art, what gets documented, what are the untold stories element to it? And I'm interested in looking at it as a cultural form, this art history form.

Yeah. What do you see or the kind of ... To me, it seems like a broader lens that perhaps anthropologists or sociologists have missed or this whole telling of the story, which seems it ... There's a sort of irony that I feel that it is art on your body or too on your body. Yeah. And yet some of it seems to be hidden and untold.

Yeah. Whereas it seems to be, I guess it, tends to be la- last for the life of the person, although we have mummified and other things, so it doesn't go into museums at some art, but you have more ephemeral art practices- Yeah. ... which do go into the art conscious, from my practice, performance for sure- Yeah.

but a lot of other ones. So it seems to me really intriguing this and how it got picked up by the sociologists and things maybe first and through potentially a narrow lens and where we've ended up.

Matt: Yeah. I think ... So this is really at the core of ... I think this is really where I got to. It wasn't really the starting point of my PhD, but it's where I got to.

So my PhD, which I started in 2005 on the back of a master's degree that touched on some of the same topics a couple years earlier I wanted to write really in this kind of, l- in the light of this late '90s work on embodiment, I wanted to think about what it meant to be an artwork in the world, right?

Like what was the kind of ... This is a kind of very pretentious, philosophical thought, really, commensurate with scholars in their 20s and what academia was like in the late '90s anyway. I wanted to understand, I think, the phenomenology and ontology of an artwork, right?

Because tattooing's an art practice body art, we all know what that is. So I thought then I'd be interested to know what it means to be what's the ontology or phenomenology really of being an artwork in the world? And it turns out that the first premise of that question, which is tattooing an art form anyway, was actually way more complicated

In some senses, not complicated at all, I think, but it was certainly understudied. And so I'm still working on what was gonna be really the first chapter of my PhD that I started 20 years ago, right? The ... What I think is really important about art history as a methodological set here is that we don't care what is and isn't art, right?

Whether something is or isn't art is for us a kinda contingent question, right? So we will take it as a given in a historical moment or, the classic kind of formulation of if an artist says it's art. That's really the position that art history as a discipline has taken since the least 1970s, probably e- even a little bit earlier.

For philosophers of art, aestheticians, the question of is something art or not is interesting, but art historians, we don't really care. In fact, I have interesting conversations with my philosophy colleagues at Essex who keep telling my students that there is a definition of art, and I have to tell them off telling them that.

So art historians can skip over the thing that I think a lot of other disciplines get hung up on. Anthropology is really important here. Anthropologists and I've written an academic paper about this particularly the work of a guy called Alfred Gail although there are predecessors as well to him in the '90s wrote basically a kind of series of books about what has n- now become known as visual anthropology, right?

The anthropology of making things, making images and objects. And Gail basically based that initial thinking because he was largely anthropologist of the Pacific on tattooing, right? He wanted to think about how tattooing could be art in an anthropological sense. And in a well-meaning way, he wanted to avoid this idea that he understood art Western art history to have, which was a kind of chauvinism, right?

Which it can be art if it's good, if it's beautiful, if it's technically proficient, if it's normative, none of which is particularly true. I don't think of contemporary art history as a method but probably is true of art history as a cultural thing. So Girl and others then came up with this idea that to, to get away with that the way that anthropologists should, would think about tattooing and other forms of, i- indigenous art making, for example, would be to think about, not about their style, not about their beauty really, but to think about their function.

And this was and Gail himself says "I'm methodologically Philistine, Philistine, I'm a methodological Philistine." He said, "I'm anti-art necessarily," right? And what he meant by that is he didn't wanna get bogged down into questions of beauty, which he understood as hierarchical, and he wanted to think about form.

So that's why it functions. The point of making a shield with a lion's head on it, this is an example that he gives, is because it's scary for the, for example, the scary for your enemies. So there's a kind of functional thing here. And so anthropologists who've been thinking about tattooing after Girl, and it's also implicit in work before him too, we're asking basically, why do you get tattooed right?

Which for a nice story, and I, as I just said, I think it's the wrong question. We don't ask. In fact, it's completely uninteresting to tell a night story and why people paint, or if we do ask that question, it's only the beginning of our inquiry. There are functional art objects in the Western Historical Canon, things like altar pieces and stuff.

But, like, why people do it is only the first kind of layer. And then we get into things like, which I think are much more interesting, which are questions of style and taste and reception. And weirdly although it seems really obvious to me that tattooing is a, can be understood in the same way as a painting.

Crucially, I don't ever wanna make the claim that tattooing is art for reasons I've already explained. What that was- wasn't present anywhere, surprisingly enough to me when I started up my research. And it feels a bit like an open goal to me, because most tattoo people understand it.

It's natural, right? But the implications of that question, so things like who is the author of a tattoo, for example, is it me as the person who has it on their body? Is it the person who puts it on my body, the tattoo artist? Is it some combination of us? These are things that art history has tools for and theoretical arguments about.

We talk about things like patronage and architecture. For example, there is a lot of interesting literature on collaborative making, but anthropology and functionalism can't do that, don't even think about that. And I think I have been asking the wrong questions. And there are similar examples for sociology as well.

The sociology of tattooing comes out of criminology, really, which was designed in a moment of scientific racism to try and diagnose how primitive you are, right? So I think ironically, art history, particularly art history as it developed in the back end of the 20th century, was just a method set that was increasingly interesting, let, uninterested in the things that had bogged down and I think impeded other disciplinary approaches to the same set of questions.

But it seems, it's ... I talk to tattooists sometimes and have my whole career who go, "Yeah, obviously." Obviously it's an art form or obviously we can think about style, taste, authorship, fashion, technique, the relationship between technology, machines and inks and the kind of tattoos people get.

All of those things for people who are doing it, it's almost a bit obvious to them.

Ben: Yeah.

Matt: And it's very rarely that I say stuff and publish stuff that hasn't in some form been articulated by a tartarist amongst themselves in the last century.

Ben: That's fascinating. That brings up so many things, but the simple answer is yes but then you go on and then also that it might be completely the wrong question.

I recall speaking to someone who essentially studies photography as well through this lens. I don't think they quite called themselves a historian of photography, but maybe ... And they also answered, there's a question, from philosophers is photography art and they were completely- Yeah.

uninterested in whether it was art or not art or how you might ...

Matt: It's interesting as a historical question. So as a contingent question, when galleries start treating photography as art and photographs as artists, is it a historically interesting question because it tells us something about the cultural moment, but whether the object itself is or isn't art is exactly, as you say, a weird question.

Anthropologists also, some of my students take a module with my colleagues. We have a really great set of anthropologists  and I'm not shitting on them really although it sounds often like I am. I don't mean to. I've got some of my best friends who are visual anthropologists.

But some of my students take visual anthropology classes which focus on photography in visual anthropology and that, and they're quite astonished actually the methodological divergence between those two approaches because those first photographs will be te- treated as functional or as documentary or even if they're not, even if they have a kind of aesthetic dimension, that aesthetic is itself taken as functional, which is just not how art historians think about images,

Ben: Yeah. I guess it's the same on, I guess what we call cave art it's got, it's, completely, obviously we have, we'll never, ever know what the people who made those things were thinking, and it's just impossible. Yeah. So exactly. You gotta start from a complete-

Matt: Yeah. I cited an art historian in, in, in this paper that I wrote about who pointed out that art historians still, or maybe now especially, don't have a theory of intention.

We have to import theory. We, if we need them for our questions we're asking, we have to import them from i- from psychology and art and anthropology. But since the 1960s and 70s, art historians haven't had a theory of intention, which for me is interesting because, so many things about tattooing pa- have boiled down to what does that mean or why would you do that?

So why would you choose a tattoo in the first place and it, why did you choose that tattoo? And I think for that really makes sense, it really cuts off a lot of potential areas of inquiry which an historical approach enables, you know?

Ben: Yeah, that feels very narrow. I'm really fascinated essentially by what word would I use?

The interdependencies, the interdependency of the tattooist, your choice, how you present, and that's for a lot of creative human endeavors, interdependencies in music, when we make things together- Absolutely. ... collaboratively, particularly in performance art where you have a script and then it's embodied and then it's ephemeral, all of these types of things.

Matt: Performance art for me, performance art for me was a real clique moment as I was doing my ... I did a master's, so I did an undergraduate degree in languages. I've been really interested in ... I did a theater studies MA. So I was really interested in my teenage years in Brexton and in fact my A- level theater teacher hated theater theory, and I ended up teaching my class Brett when I was 17.

But I went and did a degree in French and German, and in my final year, had a module in European cinema about remakes. And all, in that, we started reading again some of the things that I'd been interested in, including Brecht actually in, in, in my theater studies degree. And then I started realizing

I did a master's degree in the body at Reading, interdisciplinary master's degree in the body. And on that, we had lessons, lectures from theater studies and performance studies people. And all of a sudden, someone said to me like someone like Lee Bowery the fashion, club kid and performance artist who I'd seen on a genes ad, in the late 80s and thought was incredibly cool.

Or like all these people that I was seeing, like Ron Athey who were getting in trouble for doing kind of very bloodily performance art. Someone said, That's called art, right? All of these bands that I liked were doing very bodily, shocking performances, the fact that there was a kind of lens to understand that stuff as art, as I said, my parents didn't take me to art galleries.

I didn't really have a frame for knowing what art was. And when someone said, "That stuff that you like that is performative and performance is art in some senses," I was like, "Oh, that really clicks for me. " But I didn't know it was art, when I saw Franco B bleeding, until he fainted and when I saw I don't know, Gina Parney, all of those very extreme, if you like, or very kind of intense performances from the late '90s that just crept into my subculture as a kid who was like reading heavy metal magazines.

When s- when it turned out to me that was art, I was like oh, okay. Now I can start making the connections." And performance art for me was really, a real cornerstone of how I think about all of this stuff.

Ben: I remember seeing Franco B, I think a performance cutting and bleeding on a white paper roll in the room 


being so viscerally impacted and thinking if I have this visual impact from all of these kinds of things, I can see why these things we're putting in the realm of art." I'm interested that through the lens of history, I guess a typical person thinks of history chronologically within time, but when I read Painted People and your choice of that, you went through individual tattoos, I think 21 of them, rather than a straight chronological history.

Yeah. And alluding to that, I'm interested why you chose to do it that way via, versus time, essentially a linear time thing, although I guess historians would argue that. And also then how did you choose, and maybe in that choosing and choice and investigation, did the, was there anything which you discovered or your mind was changed a lot about what you thought about it?

So it's a little bit why through individuals rather than say a strict timeline and how did you go about ... thinking and choosing that?

Matt: So I'm a big fan of chronology in general, partly because we talked about misconceptions earlier. One of the misconceptions that really bugs, for example, the history of Western tattooing is this idea that it quote unquote only recently became, not just for sailors.

I have a whole lecture that I give on this and the re- more, most recent book was a bit structured about this too. This idea that tattooing is over now and is far too fashionable and it was better and it was underground, and it goes back to the 1880s. There's examples from every single decade in the la- from the late 19th century to the present, saying that tattooing only recently, became fashionable, which I think is hilarious when you're finding examples from the the, from 1905 saying that, ta- tattooing used to be confined to seeming only, so when I did my exhibition, I did a big exhibition called British Tattoo Revealed, that doing that chronologically is really important because it helped people understand, I think, when we started out telling, what early modern antiquarian historians were saying about tattooing in the 16th century it was able to instantly give people an idea that everything they thought they knew about the recency of tattooing as a presence on British bodies wa- was misconce- misconceived.

So where tattooing can, where chronology can serve a rhetorical purpose, I think it's really useful. The painted people is laid out chronologically, but I also really wanted to A, tell as much of a geographically diverse story as I could, although I because I'm not an anthropologist, something else I'm really, I try and do that, that other people haven't done in the past is I try and not go, get out over my skis.

So painting people I talk about, for example, Inuit tattooing and a couple of chapters. I talk about tattooing in Fiji, I talk about tattooing in ancient Siberia. But I do so as much as possible from a lens of, like, how the people from outside those cultures encountered them, wrote about them, en- en- engaged with them, I can't write and wouldn't wanna write an anthropological account of what those practices really quote unquote mean, because to do that requires, much deep expertise and I don't.

And this is, this comes down to this sort of cl- one of the cliches that I repeat a lot, which is, tattooing as a medium, not a phenomenon. I wanna, so I wanna try and ... So the painting of people approaching having an individual sort of character tattoo for each chapter was a way of de- anthropologizing the practice in a way.

It was also a way of trying to break up this idea that again, is a problem, I think, in the historograph- historiography of tattooing in the West, which is that people think increasingly less now. I think the message has been getting out there after me and some of my predecessors were shouting about it for a long time.

People thought, like Gail himself did, that tattooing was discovered in the Pacific and there was no tattooing in Europe prior to the late 18th century. And so deanthropologizing those stories and having individuals from dif- disparate parts of the world from a broader period of time, I hope, try

I wanna sever the connection between that and the idea that Western people stole tattooing from indigenous people, because that itself is a kind of racist lie. And in fact, there's a chapter right in the middle of Painted People about Mecock, this Inuit woman who was brought to England basically commissioned with the departure of Cook's fleet to Tahiti for the first time.

And her portrait with her facial tattoos was hanging on the wall of the Royal Academy in London the day that Captain Cook and Joseph Banks first set foot in Tahiti in 1769, which I think is a remark- it was a remarkable piece of like final nail in the coffin of that, what my colleague and friend Anna Friedman called The Cook Me.

So the approach was just a way of yeah, de- anthropologizing, ta- tattooing in a way selecting the stories there are annoyingly actually, and we only, I, only 20 chapters, because the 21st was supposed to be the prologue, which was the story of my great-grandma that I've already told you.

But the editor basically thought that it was taking too long to get to the first chapter, which was fair enough. So we incorporated her story into the book, and by that point it was too late to change the title. So there actually are only 20 chapters although I, the 21st is my great-grandma and I got that into the introduction.

But the way we chose them really, I wanted to tell cool stories. I wanted to tell stories that represented as much kind of global tattoo history as I reasonably could with my skills and what I thought was interesting. There were some things we had to get in, all good popular history books need a bit of ancient Rome and ancient Egypt and ancient Greece and ancient China, these are great.

But they were also opportunities to tell, I think big stories of the kind we were alluding to about colonialism, about myth making, about cultural normativity and each of those individual stories were ways into specific problems. There's a, there, there's chapters which also deal with things that I wanted to myth bust.

There's a chapter, for example, about two criminal, two Victorian s- sex working women who were presumed to be part of this gang, the 40 thieves, and it turned out that, the jailer in that case basically pointed out that not every single person who has a tattoo is in the same gang, a mistake that the FBI is still making 200 years later.

So there were a few stories I wanted to tell in there, stories that needed to be told and stories that kind of worked in the context of a trade book. In terms of things that I learned there were two stories in the book that are unfinished and they're ones that I've written errata for on my website and are still unfinished.

And with them, when we did the paperback there wasn't enough room to fully include the bigger stories and both of them kept developing. So this is a long answer, but we'll just go quickly into both of them. One is the story of this young girl, which I think is also a really good example of what the book's trying to do.

The story of a young girl called Madeline Altman, who was a middle class girl from Brooklyn in the early 20th century, 1906. She ran away from home and they found her a few days later cheering gum and covered in tattoos, basically. And she's linked to tattoo history because one of the people that tattooed her was the guy who invented the electric tattoo machine, a guy called Samuel O'Reilly.

But as far as recorded history goes, she was in the papers for about three days, four days. She, and she just seems cool. Like she's 15 and sassy and I always wonder what happened to her. And what happened to her becomes a story of that chapter and it's, the book becomes a story about children's homes and how young women are treated in America in the early part of the 20th century.

And when I wrote the book, I wasn't able to find her. She disappeared into the historical record. And then in subsequent years some more genealogical documents were uploaded to various databases that allowed me to finish her story. And long, long story short, after a sad life marrying into a wealthy family in Texas, she ended up running away with a cowboy actor who's one of the most famous cowboys in drugstore cowboys in Hollywood history.

So that was nice. Her her ha- she got a happy ending anyway. And then the other story, which is a story that is also interesting and ongoing, was the story of whether Picasso was a tattoo artist. And there were stories essentially in the Icelandic press in the 1950s. So that chapter becomes a story about basically prop- propaganda, communist propaganda in the 1950s.

I was researching the Argentinian beef trade, for example. There were a couple of things that I missed in that story and a couple of things that came to light later on. And anyway, it turns out the story was that he was, as a joke, Picasso tattooed the wife of an Argentinian beef magnate with a hammer and sickle in 1953 and this became a diplomatic incident.

None of that is true at all. So then the question became like, where did it come from? I think it was pretty likely a CIA plot. And then a paper was published by a guy in Sweden who pointed out that the author of the original article in the Swiss, in the Swedish papers was basically a kind of undercover Swedish intelligence operative.

So my kind of instinct played out there, but it's still quite murky. But then subsequently, I have found through some private archives and some really digital stuff that there is evidence of Picasso discussing tattooing with George Brack in about 1917. The, those two stories, which both of those chapters almost were written as I'm going through these very weird and strange archive trails and both of those trails continue to roll out,

Ben: That's amazing.

It just really reflects your other tagline, the history of everything or certainly the history of humanity. And it seems all entangled. And I was, it was really interesting that a lot of the ideas we're grappling with now are ref- are reflected with that, or been grappling with, since forever.

And I'm interested in some of those myths. How important do you think it is that we have these origin stories and they're apocryphal or wrong and where they are. You mentioned a couple sort of the Captain Cook one. Yeah. The class one, through the British lens of class, but you can see it through money or call it aristocrats or not, which seems to also reflect this low art, high art kind of thinking around and what respectable women to tourists seem to be- Yeah.

like women in art and also women in novels, although perhaps a little bit less at least as writers, mostly forgotten or not. And that seems almost amazing as well. And then obviously the Western traditions versus all non-Western. Do you think that just reflects how human culture is developed or do you think there's something specific around this where you think about it through class and women and what's been forgotten?

Is it just unsurprising to you that we have this history which just reflects through tattoos?

Matt: Yeah. It becomes, I think it becomes essentially a historiographical question as much as a historical one, right? So the Cook example is really interesting. So as I said, you will still find books and even scholarly books written. I said fewer now, because I think we've got better at getting the story out, but certainly up until very recently, books that said Captain Cook discovered tattooing in the Pacific.

Now, Captain Cook didn't even believe that. That story s- so the Cook Voyages, between 1769 and 1776, that story appears, that said not long after the Voyages, the first examples I think are in the early 1800s. So then the question becomes, why does that story happen, right? Why is it that people believe that Captain Cook discovered tattooing and there was noticing on Europeans?

And of course the ar- I pause that I say, of course, I posit the answer to that is essentially, scientific racism, that it becomes the story of the colonial era of the 19th century that non-Western people, the people of the, global majority who were colonizing are different to us in a quite profound way.

And tattooing is one way to articulate that. So the narrative of history is a way of cultural storytelling. And that's really just, and I don't mean that in any kind of conspiratorial way, really. It can be, but it's just a way that, it's just the way that history and historians work and the way that knowledge works.

The Anisia question for me was so interesting and why the story of Meacock was one of my favorites to write in Painted People because I was like, how did people forget that there was, a tattooed Inuit portrait on the wall of the British the role of the Royal Academy in 1769.

And prior to that, not even hidden away in ... there is some tattoo history that we're discovering that is very buried and quite obscure back into the 16th century and stuff at the moment. But every major history of the British Isles, for example, talks about tattooing amongst the ancient Britains.

Now, it turns out, ironically, it probably, it actually probably wasn't true but certainly antiquarian Britons believed that there was tattooing happening in the British Isles, and these are in all of the classic histories of British tattooing. It's in all of the major Roman histories and of Britain, it's in Tacitus.

So how did we miss that? What, why did people think that? The same is true of, and again, to pick my great-grandmother's example, right? It was really amazing to me to learn that you could buy tattoo machines in essentially Edwardian Debenhams, a place called Gamages, and we've since found out they were also available elsewhere.

Not, not hidden away. One of, one of the catalogs is basically tattooing, comma, telephones, et cetera. It was a fairly normal part of the offering of this particular store and some others like it in the Edwardian period. But the story of the 20th century and World War II, et cetera, a- and the intellectual histories doesn't really allow for that to be an understandable, perceptible truth.

The same is true across all kinds of historical thinking. You see all this outrage in tabloids about storytelling of people of color in British history, for example, and it gets slandered as rewriting history, as if that's a bad thing. But what all rewriting history is doing is basically going, "Let's go back and actually check.

Let's go and see if we've missed anything. Let's see if those of our prior generation look..." And of course, we do this ourselves, we're looking, we're always looking through the evidence we have through the lens of our own politics and experience to some degree. Yeah, I think for me, tattooing's really interesting because so much of its history has been told by i- in particular ways and also much of it's been invisible.

So much tattooing has been under clothing, particularly marginalized tattooing. Gay, I write a lot and do a lot of research on queer and gay tattoo histories- so much of that would be hi- hidden away. And I never wanna kinda also say that and this was a problem in the newer book, really.

I, I, in a way, the new book's a bit re- it feels a bit regressive historically because it is, someone did write this in a review, but it is a story of largely white men, right? But unfortunately, I have to say, that is what happened. The tattooist who was in ... There were loads of tattooists who were women, people of color doing stuff, tattooing, but the people who were influential, the people who were popular, people who were known about, the people who actually made an impact on the history per se, were white men.

Some of them gay, not all of them straight white men but were white men. And it's a fair criticism, but as a c- a friend of mine once said, he's a historian of piercing, he's or he's where are all the kind of trans, diasporic piercers from the 1950s?

And it's they didn't exist or they did exist, but they didn't exist in a way that is relevant to the overall big story of the tattoo and piercing industry story. So we found these individual people who were doing cool stuff o- on their own time, and there were some interesting archival lens problems that we got into.

L- lesbian history's much worse told than gay male history, for example, partly b- largely because of social reasons.

Ben: That's really fascinating. That, that whole idea that what, what gets told, what gets hidden, all of the reasons, all of the reasons behind that, I think that's really, that's really fascinating about what remains not.

And on the whole, we forget the amnesia point the more I speak to people, it's interesting how we seem to do this across all domains. So we seem to have forgotten science ideas. Yeah. Like even just because Captain Cook's been mentioned a couple of times, but the whole lemon scurvy thing, it's an idea- Yeah.

we seem to rediscover two or three times within a period of 50 to 100 years because we forget it. And even scientific method ideas, like we come to this idea of today, this controlled trial, which is a very core science idea, you, we could have discovered it ages ago and it seems to have popped up and then disappeared again.

We humans seem to be very good at forgetting stuff. 

Matt: Yeah, for getting stuff and getting stuff wrong, and again, I'm, we're all guilty of this just necessarily as human beings. And part of the structure of academic thinking and scientific thinking is meant to correct for that or meant to kinda, mitigate those things as much as possible, things like peer review and things like just, academic rigor in general footnotes and citing your sources and stuff, like that's meant to as much as possible work against that.

But also a big part of it for me has been the institutional history that I alluded to earlier on as well. Historians of tattooing in the past have those who've been academics have either come to tattooing really because they were bored with what else they were doing and they thought tattooing would be a fun hobby and they'd ring someone up and basically, "Hey, you're weird.

Can I come and interview you, whatever?" And they get told to, to go away. But also this institutional history of collecting. Tattoos are not easy to collect because of their ephemeral nature. But more than that, just the ephemeral history of tattooing, the things that I study a lot, machines, drawings, photographs self-published, small run magazines, letters between tattoos, they're not the kind of things that have any institutional history anywhere in the world, right?

Some are collected peripherally, but the big collections of tattoo history are all in private hands which comes with its own challenges, but with its own joys. And it's, I think it took a generation ... So there was a ... I came, as I said, of age as an academic in this period in the late '90s and the 2000s, which coincided with a general interest in the body, which I'm very fortunate to have.

Lots of my colleagues who did PhDs in tattooing are now not working in academia, they're doing other things. But nevertheless, I think we all benefited from having been tattooed, from knowing tattooed people, from understanding it from the inside to some degree but even, it's taken me as I've been doing this, however you wanna count it, for somewhere between 25 and 30 years.

And it's taken me that long in a way to really start to get credibility and access to material that, let alone the things that people don't know are out there, that people know and just don't wanna share with people. And there still, I'm sure there's still things out there like that too. And that's important.

Huge amounts of my work is premised on, in a way stuff that the tattoo industry in, in part already knew, but it's based on documents, images, stories that just weren't accessible to conventional academic methods.

Ben: I think that's really important. I remember viewing the photographs of Nan Goldin and part of her work is the fact that she's essentially documenting her community and coming through that and you have that.

And it's this really interesting question of, who gets to collect, who gets to decide, who documents, and in the past, like you say, l- the lesbian community wasn't documenting anything for l- lots of reasons- Yeah. ... or were being purposely marginalized, and then even coming through it.

Matt: Let me give you another example from, that's in both books, but again, I found out more about this in the time since. During COVID I was, putting together Painting People and I came across this report in the Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons and it talked about in 1891, this group of, group of surgeons, as they do, get together, and they basically meet up once a, a few times a year or whatever, and they'd bring along a cool thing.

They'd cut off a patient recently, essentially, show and tell, right? And there's a story in there of this guy called Jay Biggs, who brought along I'm not, I'm quite from memory here, but some, something like a most interesting specimen of a tattooed Irishman, right? I have been doing this a long time. As I said, my colleague, Gemma,  is a historian of specifically preserved tattooed human remains. I said, "Have you heard of this, Gemma?"

No, I looked at the University of Edinburgh's human remains record. It wasn't there. And, no one had seen or heard of this since. So I presumed it must be lost, but I wrote to the librarian and said "I know you haven't got this skin anymore, but do you have any records of where it might have gone or who it might have come from in the first place?"

And a few days later, he was like, "Yeah, I think I've seen that. I think it's in the storm." Anyway, there were two freestanding dry preserved skin specimens, one of basically a whole front of a man, a young man, and then one another of two rib panels. The back piece must still be out there somewhere or always lost.

And it's just been sitting in this library since it was, or archive, since it was donated to them in 1891, and no one had looked at it or recorded it or seen it since. And I went to look for records of ... So now I know a bit about big things and stuff. I went to look for more records. And basically, the records are just had a meeting, people bought stuff.

It wasn't even officially interesting to them to write much down about it which I find amazing. And it turns out, and here's the kicker, something that isn't in the book because I found out subsequently, that, those skin, that skin is basically the first tattoos ever done with electricity.

That man was the brother of Sammy Lo'Riley, the first electric tattoo artist in the world, and I only spotted that because someone on Reddit had posted a picture of this guy, John O'Riley, that I'd seen before, but had upped the up the contrast of the image, and I was looking for something else, and I was Googling it, getting something else.

I think I was looking ... I was looking for a story about another, a different tattoo Irishman, actually. So I was Googling how to tattoo an Irishman, this image came up, and I've seen the picture, but I hadn't seen it with the contrast made up. And I was like, instantly you only see the top part of his chest, but I was like, "Oh my God, that's the skin."

And now all the story makes sense, but how this guy died, we know that he was still performing in America about three or four months before his skin showed up in Scotland. Like, how his skin's in Scotland, why it's there, how, who, who dissected him, what none of that information we've yet discovered.

I'm sure some of it may be out there, some of it isn't. But basically, unless some Victorian or Edwardian person wrote it down and for whatever reason, those records have been preserved for the present day, we'll never really know what happened there. And we're building up these pieces of where his back is and if it's still out there yeah, it's, but that's the kind of thing we deal with all the time.

Ben: Yeah. That's amazing. But at least you know why it's, why it probably was important, why they kept it and may- maybe of the time.

Matt: I don't think they even knew. I just think, I just think- It's interesting they just didn't, so many museums, you hear, I've had a few of these in my career where it's like, "Oh, we found this in our museum.

Where does it come from? No idea." This is professional museums, let alone private collections and family collections,

Ben: maybe it's no, no surprise then if the professional memory keepers are doing this that we're losing so much.

Matt:  And a friend of mine, a friend of mine who's a historian of like protest and political protest he went, he was doing a book and he went looking for images of some posters and they were from a, I think they were from a Native American group in the '70s or something.

And he found the person who owned them as far as he knew and they said, "Oh, we donated them to this particular museum." And so he wrote to the museum, they said, "No, we haven't got them. No, that's not ... " He said, "Look, can I just come and look for them in your stores?" And he basically went there knowing that they were there, the muse- and found them in a box labeled uninteresting catalog last.

Ben: Oh, crazy.


Matt: This is systematic.

Ben: I would- maybe we'll mention museums in a little bit, and I know we're pressing on in time. I'd be interested in teasing today a little bit and your thoughts. I guess two things come up on social media or particularly Instagram because I guess that's visual social media, but in, in general.

And I guess another one will be what you think AI might do. And I guess there may be a tiny bit interrelated as well, but I was interested in how you think Instagram has changed or not how we pr- how we present this. And I, you know- Yeah. ... I've only flicked onto it, but there's a whole seemingly another subculture of where Instagram meets tattoos or maybe it's just an.

Matt: Yeah. No, 100%. Yeah. I think so, I, again, came of age at the, this is, I think also part of the reason I have a career. I came of age, at a particular moment in the 90s when the internet was nascent and I was a big early adopter of online culture. I got a modem for my 15th birthday in 1995 and the first thing I did was seek out information about tattooing and piercing on a web, on a, on bulletin boards, on usernet groups and on websites that didn't have any pictures on them, or at least I couldn't afford to see them if they were pictures because they were, it was like 60P a minute.

I remember my mom on my 14 four board mode. But even that early, even that early moment of the late '90s, early thousands tattooing culture, being online, started to change how people thought about it. But more, more so perhaps with piercing and body mod stuff. So we're talking about things like subdermal implants, tongue splitting that, things like that basically

And I've talked to a really good friend of mine who ran one of the most important very hardcore archives of subcultural body modification practice on the internet in the early 2000s. And he's now, as a much older and wiser man, a bit worried about this question, about what it was that making visible this stuff to people who would perhaps not have encountered it on their own did, for example, so I have a split tongue.

Ben: Oh, wow. Yeah. For those that are seeing the video, that's quite amazing.

Matt: Tongue splitting is the only body modification that we have no anthropological antecedent for until 1997.

Ben: Really?

Matt: Yeah. So there were rumors about it and it being possible from the mid '90s onwards but no one had seen it or proved it was possible until 1997.

And then, some, basically a guy in Italy sent an anonymous photograph of his tongue split to this website, in the middle of 1997. And then instantly, about three or four weeks later, four more people had copied it. And then, I got my insight six years after that, partly because I didn't understand it, and I think the only way to understand it would be to do it.

But would I have independently come to the idea of cutting my tongue in half? Probably not, right? And then you come to the question of the ethics of that proof for another podcast. But this kind of thing, there have been people doing stuff, their body's tattooing and everything else because they had some kind of innate uncommunicated desire.

They didn't see it in magazines. Obviously, it wasn't something they knew was po- possible, but they were trying it out in the privacy of their own homes. And those people are the, men and women are the pioneers of our scenes, if you like. But there is a question about, it's also relevant for lots of other conversations, things like anorexia, body dysmorphia, fashion in general.

Would, if you didn't see it, would you desire it? And if you didn't, is that a bad thing? I think what Instagram's done, really, all it's done is ... and other people differ on this, and this is a sociological question as much as not a historical one. But I think as an art- art historian, I would say what Instagram's done is speed up the cycle.

And I think that's true of all kinds of other forms of cultural production as well, of music and of clothing and of, everything else.

 

Matt: Before, I think tattooing was the kind of thing where and again, this is something that I think is quite obvious from historical record, but wasn't really articulated.

People get tattoos that are linked to the visual culture of their moment. So civilian tattooing and, 300 AD, those, the tattooed images they have match the images we find in their metal work and on their leather work. The same is true in ancient Peruvian mummies. The designs we found on preserved mummies in Peru matched the kind of images that we have on stoneware, for example.

And people in the 19th century after the opening of Japan are getting Japanese style tattoos or tattoos of their favorite paintings. And so I think what Instagram does is just accelerate that. Trends that used to maybe persist for a decade or most of a decade and now over in a couple of years, but it's still just like people getting tattoos that they see that are trendy and cool and that feels, some tattooers feel that is a cheapening of tattooing, but I think in some forms, it is just a version of what's always happened, more or less.

Ben: I can see that with a sort of less controversial example, back to my very first one on dancing, like a lot of people have an impulse to dance. You could say everyone, maybe not everyone has an impulse for body art but some do. And then we've gone into these TikTok and Instagram dances.

So- Yeah. ... you do them.

Matt: Great.

Ben: Some people systemize them and, but they live and die very fast.

Matt: Yeah.

Ben: But presumably we've all wanted to dance. Some of us wanna put it out there and then we copy we've copied dances all through the real- ... that they used to last for longer and now a TikTok dance might last for a month or two or not even.

So I can really see that happening. Now, whether it's true across perhaps smaller impulses, it does seem like we've had an impulse to body mod for a while, maybe not everyone and surfacing that this …


Matt: Things become, even if they're not normative in mainstream society, as they as body modifications and tattoos are in certain places and have been at a certain place in certain times in history they will become normative in subculture, but subculture's much more complicated in the age of the internet.

One of the things that happens in the, basically, and one of the reasons why you'll notice both my books slightly cowardly end around the turn of the millennium and I need to start grappling with that really is because after the turn of millennium, the story is much more difficult to tell because ev- I'm interested in influence in a way and stylistic evolution.

And in, in the era of post-modernity in the 21st century, everything's flat and you can't trace ... There's a really popular style of tattooing now that is called cyber sigilism. People call it spiky tribal. And I can't find any ... Someone may know this, but I haven't found anyone and I've looked, I can't find who started that, that style…  It's everywhere now.

It's very trendy amongst young people. People like me hate it. I don't like it, but that's fine.That's good. If I liked it, it would be bad, as I said- Couldn't be cool. Yeah. Exactly. It's the stuff that's very cool or was, probably was until about five minutes ago. But there must have been, there must have been even if it's not one person, there must have been a kind of subculture somewhere.

I think maybe in Russia is my best guess where that came from, but it doesn't, there's not one person that I can identify or happen to yet to identify who is the originator of that style. And there isn't even, as far as I can tell, a mythology for that other styles in Western tattoo history like black and gray, for example, there is a mythology about who invented it.

So this is just what's happening with the internet. It's too fast, it's too diffused, it's too flat and there's less kind of depth. And I don't mean that critically, just as a fact in, where these styles come from. The other thing as well is about removability. And I think Gen Z have become increasingly comfortable with the idea that tattoos are removable, which is more true than it was when I was younger, but certainly not true.

And there's been a lot of interesting kinds of brouhaha recently about ephemeral tattooing and tattoo removal and how much it costs and stuff. So I think that there's something cultural about that's also lends itself to Instagram. I think Gen Z has begun to think about tattooing as less permanent, which I think is a problem.

And one of the reasons why tattooing, one of the reasons people get asked why, what will you think of when you're older is a weird question for a tattooed person because we, I think most of us are quite, especially heavily tattooed people are very comfortable with the idea of being an old tattoo person.

On AI, and this is it fits into a lot of controversy rightly so about AI use by tattooists which I don't think was quite your question. I think the A- the AI, and we did a whole episode of the podcast about this. What's interesting is that there is a kind of aesthetic of AI now and you will see there are some really incredible tattoos clearly done with AI.

There's lot of bad tattoos done with AI by tattoo artists. And I'm really no fan of it. I'm a very, quite military anti, actually. But one of the interesting things, for example, is that if you look at photorealistic tattooing ... So photorealistic tattooing, again, has its detractors. It's incredibly interesting to me as a technical feat because I've just got all traditional, which is just black lines and color in it.

I don't really understand how it even works. But photo realistic tattooing, obviously, up until very recently was limited by what the customer could bring a photo of, particularly if the artist was not particularly skilled in collaging or drawing photo realistically without direct reference, right?

What you see now is really big, very good, well-executed tattoos that have clearly been composed using AI because you can ask it to put photorealistic details into a, that you can give it into a composition that will work. Now, there's lots of really terrible AI tattoos and I don't even like the ones I'm talking about, but technically they're great tattoos.

And but, and of course, we live in an era of the AI generation, so of course, some people like that, and so some of their tattoos are gonna reflect that aesthetic. That seems like quite an obvious question, in a way, as a historian but not something that, for example, the anthropological account has given much weight to.

Ben: That seems fair. On your earlier point about not knowing where things come from and just observing that's perhaps to do with having a flat culture, I have a pet theory of change or pet theory, limited evidence, but some is that some things are almost becoming an emergent property of how people and things get together, because you have this with memes.

Yeah. So we don't really know how memes come about. Sometimes you have got a trace story, but- Yeah. ... often they seem three or four relatively weak stories- Yeah. ... which somehow morphed together and we've taken that as the narrative of how they come or even TikTok dancers. So that's another form of meme.

And sometimes we have an origin story, but sometimes when I look at them, it feels very weak and people don't really agree, but it seems to be an emergent property of these things, Yeah. ... come together.

Matt: I get I've had the, again, this has been something for a long time, and I think interestingly, one of the mistakes that popular culture and even some bits of academic culture have made about tattooing, which is to overdetermine that kind of thing, what does a certain image mean?

You'll see this a lot on TikTok of people saying "if you've got a spiderweb tattoo, it means you killed someone in prison- ... or if you've got a swallow, you cross the Atlantic or whatever." Someone that I know once who had a teardrop tattooed on his face was stopped at immigration to the United States on his way to go to, this was years and years ago, way before the Trump era, on a way to go to Disneyland on his honeymoon and the border guard basically said "Why haven't you declared your, incarceration history?"

Yeah. I know that having the tattoo, tattoo of a teardrop means you killed someone in prison or whatever it might be. And he was like, "No, I'm just a guy with a tattoo from England who thinks that it looks cool." And this is, again, the story of that chapter in Painted People. But yeah, that overdetermination of thinking about tattooing as non-arbitrary, what we might call in art history iconological, is a real mistake.

I also once got, this time how long ago it was because it was on Tumblr. I once got a Tumblr DM a long time ago from somebody that was, like, obsessed with One Direction, the boy band, and was asking me if Liam's tattoos meant he was really in love with Harry, and I had to go doesn't really work like that, not straightforwardly, at least.

But that's, but that, as you said, that's a mistake that people make, I think, are overdetermining origin or making, understanding this, again, what we might call an academic thinking on this topic extreme intentional theory, like this idea that you only communicate what the author intends.

And I don't, this just can't be true can't be true.

Ben: Wrong question.

Matt: Yeah.

Ben: Maybe coming to the last two or three questions, I thought I'd do a very short section and maybe, because I actually got a sense of where it would be of overrated, underrated. So I'll name something- ... And then you can tell me whether you think it's overrated, underrated.

But we have touched on most of these, but just to clarify but overrated, underrated, then AI. So I'm assuming this is overrated for you- Oh, over, yeah. ... terms of AI as a- way overrated AI as a tool- Yeah. ... is that in fact- Yeah, way

Matt: overrated. ...

Ben: even a little bit sus- not suspicious, but that yeah the output of it, particularly in the world with a two is, is definitely overrated.

Matt: Yeah, dangerous. Yeah. Again, that's, I listen to my podcast I've said about that, because I could learn about that for an hour. Overrated.

Ben: And then and then laser removal. So I got the sense that this was overrated as well, or rather the concept of that, I guess the core idea of it too is that it does last through time.

So m- maybe if you get one with the fact that you're going to remove it later, then that's maybe something else. I don't know. So laser removal, overrated, underrated.

Matt: So I think it's ... So I don't know. I'm somewhere in the middle of that. I think actually s- some people do ascribe a kind of moral weight to that phenomenon that you're talking about.

The idea that actually, getting a tattoo removed is somehow a bad thing. I think that the increasing improvements of lasers is actually a pretty good thing. If you've got a tattoo that's bad, if you've got a tattoo that you don't want anymore, if you have a tattoo, if you've just run out, as a friend of mine did run out of space, because she, her whole body was tattooed, like head to toe, and she just ran out of room wanting to get tattooed more.

So she got basically a whole bodysuit removed and is going over it with new stuff. She happens to know the tech- the se- laser technician, so I don't think she's paying full price for those sessions and the tattooers as well. But I think the technology's, it's really interesting. I think there's gonna, I think there's real interesting health implications and I think, I, there are some people, and I probably would include myself in this to some degree, actually who think that if tattoos became instantly or easily in cheaply removal, it would slightly detract from what makes them interesting and important in the first place.

I think I probably would count myself to some degree in that camp.

Ben: Okay. Interesting. So yeah, a bit more pots and takes than that. And then tattoos in museums, overrated or underrated?

Matt: Underrated I'm doing a big exhibition next year in collaboration with the National Museum of Wales about female tattoo artist Jesse Knight who's an incredible woman.

And I've worked very hard over the last five or six years. I did ... I collaborated on an exhibition at the Museum of London in 2017. I did a big touring exhibition between 2017 and 2020 2021, and then I'm doing this show next year at the National Museum of Wales. And I've worked very hard to get collections into museums and archives.

So Jesse's collection, I helped ... I convinced the Arts Council that it was a nationally important ar- art historical collection and was saved for the nation by the National Museum of Wales. And I'm the trustee of an archive called the Bishops Gate Institute which now has two major archives of queer tattoo history that I helped them acquire.

And I think it's important that, especially as actually loads of the big collectors who have big intact contingent collection, con- contiguous collections are starting to die off or disperse their collections, that we find ways to keep tattooing ephemeral history in institutional collections because once they're dispersed to private collections they disappear.

Private collectors are amazing. The reason that, that the history of Western Tattooing has been preserved as well as it has done, but it's very fr- we're in a very fragile moment where most of the big collectors are, coming, getting on in, in age, some have already died, and there's very diff- very difficult in the state of how museums are funded, how museums work to understand what's gonna happen to those collections-  in the next decade or so.

Ben: important to archive, as we said, in, in collect- collect, yeah.

Matt: Yeah, but I, interestingly, I think partly because of my work, but just in general, due to the kind of cultural changes that's been happening in the museum sector around the world, there is an increasing interest in, history be- beyond the kind of standard things that museums have tended to do, and tattooing has felt like something, that, that can attract, and it does work to attract new audiences.

I think it has to be done carefully and properly. But yeah, I think the challenges of actually preserving tattooed skin is a real issue, obviously and morally and ethically and legally increasingly complicated even those human remains that are tattooed that are in museums already. But it's an inter- it's an interesting time and an interesting problem and I think we're trying to find ways to get around these issues.

When I did my exhibition in Cornwall, we worked with a friend and went to Alice Snape who ran a tattoo magazine at the time to basically get tattooers in around the country. We did a hundred tattooers in Britain to tattoo rubber hands-

Ben: Wow. ...

Matt: to create an archival stylistic index, three-dimensional stylistic record of the kind of tattoos that were happening in Britain in 2017 that will now, that are now permanently part of the collection of the National Museum of Cornwall that hopefully will be there for some tattoo historian in a in a century or so to come to go back and have a look at those, three-dimensional objects.

So yeah, it's interesting. And of course now with digital preservation and things, there are ways of preserving this stuff in a way that hasn't been before.



Ben: Last one in this one, just because I listened to your recent podcast on this and was amazed would be eye tattoos, do you think-

Matt: Oh, yeah.

Ben: overrated, underrated.

Matt: Oh, over, overrated entirely, terrible idea. Even people I know that were early pioneers think that they were a terrible idea not really tattooing in a conventional sense. Yeah. Yeah, we did the whole episode about, about t- again, TikTok led trends for Irish tattooing and then subcultural te- tech trends for corneal tattooing, both of which strike me as just a terrible idea.

I've got bad enough eyes anyway- Yeah. ... I'm not gonna risk doing

Ben: Anything. I have to see, yeah, like Franco B- visceral, but it didn't make me queasy. Hearing about eye teas, I don't know whether something about the eye did actually make me feel a bit queasy-

Matt: All people are funny about eyes, aren't they?

Yeah. Yeah. I think what's interesting about that, again, the eye tattooing was something that there was a small group of people in the early 2000s, the same, literally in some cases, the same people that were doing the tongue splitting stuff, who really had a kind of very gonzo attitude that they were at the frontier of some really interesting corporeal hacking, which I find very interesting again, a topic for another day and very brave.

And those guys and gals were, like, they knew what they were doing in some senses, even though their risk reward ratios were calibrated- Yeah. ... in a particular way that I think is good. And there's a difference importantly in a lot of this between brave and reckless, they were brave, not reckless.

I think anyone roaring their eyes or towing anyone else's eyes these days is pretty reckless. And we talked about in the episode, some really egregious examples of that where people have blinded themselves and blinded others. It just doesn't seem like a good idea. And even people I know that have done it, as I said most, nearly all of them would agree that it's not a good idea.

Ben: Gotta know where you draw the line. Okay, last couple of questions. What current and future projects, anything you'd like to highlight? Obviously, you do your lecturing, you still curate, organize exhibitions, not sure if you're working on other book projects or anything, but anything you'd like to highlight for listeners?

Matt: Yeah, there's a couple of interesting things. I'm still trying to nail down the next big solo publication. I've got a couple of things in the fire. I wanna write more about this tattoo and Mr. Sebastian, who I talk about in Painted People and Tattoos, was involved in a really interesting court case called RV Brown in the late 80s, early 90s about gay men and sadomasochism.

So I wanna write a book about that. I'm doing a law degree in the service of trying to write more about that. I'm doing this exhibition with the Nationation of Wales as a consultant opening next year. I'm assisting a p- a a, on a big kind of coffee table anthology of global tattoo practices.

I'm not writing, but I'm assisting on. And with some colleagues in Japan, we're trying to do a kind of almost version of Painted People for Ja- Japan. So we're trying to do a kind of history of Japan told through the history of tattooing books, but that's in discussions at the moment and it requires some thought.

So I've always got more stuff on the go than I've got real time to do, but I'm always trying to keep up with things. There's, and there's lots of interesting smaller things happening as well. But those are the big ones. This summer's gonna be mainly working on the Jesse Knight exhibition that's gonna open in Cardiff in March 2027.

Ben: That sounds amazing. And the last question is do you have any advice for listeners? Thinking about this, perhaps the question I would ask is if you're interested in somebody's tattoos, what should you ask them? Or I guess you could also, we could also do people who are interested in having one.

Are there any reflections- ... that you might have? 'Cause there seem to be a lot of obvious questions that we probably shouldn't ask I think we mentioned a couple d- maybe don't ask-

Matt: Does it hurt?

Ben: Yeah. Does it hurt? What is it gonna look like in 20 years and like all of those obvious ones, but I'd be interested in, what's the question you would like to be asked.

And then maybe one of the people listening to this at night thinking "Oh, I have, I do have this impulse." Yeah. Where should they lead themselves with that impulse?

Matt: I think, so when I started out, and one, again, one of the reasons why I became so obsessed with tattooing anyway is that it was quite hard to find good tattoos to and by that technically and competently execute as much as anything else.

Like when I was in my late teens, the tattoos that I was seeing in tattoo magazines that I was importing from the United States didn't look anything like the tattoos that my mates were getting underage at the local toy shop in Essex. That's less true now. A quick kind of Instagram search will, if you're going to a reputable studio, we'll rev- they're really incredibly good, technically good tattoos in ev- in any, in every town in the country.

So if you want something small or a single tattoo you're really spoiled for choice now in a way that I wasn't before. I think a lot of people imagined, and this is partly, I think also one of the problems with AI, people think you have to bring the thing you want, like the image you want tattooed with you.

Most tattooers are, especially increasingly now themselves artists and are able to draw you something which will work to your brief. So I think the thing is to look for tattooers whose style you like and then just go and meet with them, go and have a, go and have a conversation with them and talk to them about the kind of thing you want, l- look at their portfolios online, look at look for heeled work, because I think a lot of people, particularly if you're interested in very small tattooing or very kind of complex tatting, a lot of the stuff on, online is photo edited these days.

So the best tattoo is all post healed work. So ask to see that. But really find a tattoo who you're comfortable with, whose work you, you're interested in and who who you wanna spend some time with because obviously, every second of every tattoo you get, you're gonna have to be sitting there with them so it's important to get towed by people you get on with.

In terms of asking questions about other people's tattoos, I think those, in a way, these questions are the same. When I was younger, I got groped, even as a kind of man I got groped by people in public. They'd come up and they'd pull my sleeves up or they'd start tugging at my collar.

That happens less now, at least to me. I'm sure there are people who can report this happening to them. But I think if you wanna talk to someone about their tattoos, I think they, I think just say, "Hey, your sales are really interesting or cool, the, I think the best question to ask is who did them," right?

Because that gets you into the kind of questions that I'm talking about, which is where are they based, what kind of styles do they do? What kind of person are they? How long ago did you get it so you can see how things heal, for example, I've got tattoos on my hands, you see online, they say… don't get tattoos in your hands because they'll fade.

These are, like, 20 years old and they're still more or less the same color they were made.

Ben: Yeah.

Matt: Yeah, those faded a bit. But I think that's the thing. And for me, this is also, to circle right back to the start, one of the key insights of my work, which is actually to think about the tattoo artist, because there are whole books, and certainly socio- sociology and criminology less anthropology, really but certainly

Oh, not a bit, but cer- certainly sociology of tattooing was r- and psychology of tattooing was really premised on the person with the tattoo, and I was like, "What about the tattoo artist, who have their portfolios, even back then, had their portfolios in printed form, now have Instagrams." They don't care about what the person's tattoo is, the person on whom the tattoo is, their story or their motivation, they just wanna present it as their interesting artwork.

And so I think thinking about the tattoo artists, their skill, their history, their interests, their style their art, their training artistically all of those things are gonna be interesting questions, or at least, if not questions, kind of facts about them which will help you as a customer find the tote you want, the thing we say, the thing we say in the two inches, go bold go big or go home, bold will hold. So if you want a little tiny tattoo, that's fine, but I'd always say get a big cool tattoo. Yeah.

Ben: Be cool. Oh, that sounds great. So first advice, don't grope anyone. Yeah, don't, yeah. That's

Matt: Just, that's just blanket advice.

Oh, yeah. Throw it here first, people.

Ben: Don't grope anyone.

Matt: Don't grab at people's clothes.

Ben: But the other one that's interesting is to ask about the artist. 

Matt: The artist. Yeah. Ask who did it.

Ben: Yeah. Great.

Matt: Yeah. And some people ... O- o- for small tattoos, people won't necessarily even remember because it was just a little Stevenier tattoo or something that took 50, 50 minutes or something.

And that's fine too. But certainly for bigger work, certainly for more elaborate work, I think the right question is always the first question's always who did that. Then you can ask, does it hurt in that part of the body, for example? And the answer is always yes, right? Of course, it hurts.

Some places are more painful than others. But the first question should always be, I think, who did it. And that's what, when I go to conventions, when I talk to tattooed people that I meet, that's always the first question I wanna know is who did that.

Ben: Great. That's amazing.

With that, Matt I will once again say you've written Painted People, get the book, and also the Untold History of a modern art. And with that, Matt, thank you very much.

Matt: Thanks so much, Benjamin. Before we finish, have you got any tattoos?

Ben: No, I don't. 

Matt: A Blank.

Ben: Yeah, I am blank and no body mods either. I have, yeah, I have been fascinated about it, but I haven't I've like a small impulse, but there's other lots and bits of fear which I've not met I've I haven't crossed the Rubicon yet, but-

Matt: Yeah, the first one's the hardest one. The first one's the hardest one, so that's good.

Ben: My art teacher always used to say that the first stroke is always the deepest.

Matt: Great. Thank you for having me. I really appreciate it. Great questions. It's really wonderful.

Ben: Thank you.




Social media bans for children: do they make sense?

Social media bans for children: do they make sense?

Governments are beginning to reach for big levers to deal with the perceived harms of social media. Australia’s decision to bar under 16 year olds from major platforms is one of the boldest examples so far. The intention is clear enough: protect children from an environment that looks increasingly hostile to their attention, self esteem and mental health.*

This essay looks at three questions:

  1. What does the evidence actually say about social media and youth mental health.

  2. How different philosophical traditions would think about this type of regulation.

  3. Whether a blanket under 16 ban is a sensible policy instrument, even if one accepts the aims.

My conclusion is that the evidence for serious average harm is weak, the harms are concentrated in subgroups, and that this specific policy is an extremely blunt instrument compared with the alternatives.

1. The evidence: how harmful is social media for adolescents?

The political story is simple. The data is not.

There are now several big reviews and meta analyses of the link between social media or “screen time” and adolescent mental health.

A widely cited review by Candice Odgers and Michaeline Jensen concludes that most studies find “a mix of often conflicting small positive, negative and null associations.” The most rigorous large preregistered studies show small associations between daily digital use and well being that are “unlikely to be of clinical or practical significance” and do not distinguish cause from effect. (PubMed)

Amy Orben and Andrew Przybylski use specification curve analysis on three large datasets of around 355,000 adolescents and find that digital technology use explains at most about 0.4 percent of the variance in well being. (PubMed) That is trivially small. You can detect it in huge samples, but no clinician would treat it as a major driver.

A broad 2022 review by Patti Valkenburg and colleagues sums up the field in almost comically cautious terms. They note that most reviews interpret the association between social media use and mental health as “weak” or “inconsistent”, a few call it “substantial” and “deleterious”, and they spend the rest of the paper explaining why the same underlying numbers are being described in such different ways. (ScienceDirect)

More recent meta analyses tighten the picture without really changing it:

  • A 2024 meta analysis by Ahmed et al finds weak but statistically significant associations between social media use and depression, anxiety and sleep problems in young people, and stronger associations for “problematic social media use” that looks more addictive. (PubMed)

  • A 2024 JAMA Pediatrics meta analysis by Fassi et al covers 143 studies and more than one million adolescents. In clinical samples they find a correlation between time spent on social media and internalising symptoms of about r = 0.08, and between engagement based metrics and symptoms of about r = 0.12. Community samples look very similar. (JAMA Network)

Translate that: r = 0.08 means that about 0.6 percent of the variation in symptoms is associated with time spent. r = 0.12 gives around 1.4 percent for engagement. That is measurable, but tiny.

There is stronger evidence that teens with existing mental health conditions use social media more and experience it differently. A 2025 paper by the same group shows that adolescents with diagnosed conditions spend more time on social media and are less satisfied with their online friendships than peers without conditions. (Nature) That is compatible with a story where vulnerable teens are drawn into patterns of use that do not help them.

On top of the correlational work there are a handful of randomised experiments, mostly in young adults, where people are asked to deactivate or sharply cut back on social media for a few weeks. These tend to find small improvements in life satisfaction, loneliness or depressive symptoms, especially for heavy or distressed users, but the effects are modest, the time frames are short and the participants are volunteers. (sarahdomoff.com)

Across this literature, there are consistent methodological problems:

  • Almost everything is correlational, not causal. Depressed kids may be more likely to spend time online.

  • Measures of “time on social media” are mostly self report and inaccurate.

  • “Social media use” lumps together very different behaviours and content.

  • Many studies are low quality by basic survey standards and are not preregistered. (NC DOCKS)

The one place where the signal looks meaningfully stronger is for clearly “problematic” or “addictive” use. Systematic reviews of problematic social media use in adolescents and young adults find much larger and more consistent associations with depression, anxiety and stress than for simple time based measures. (mental.jmir.org)

So a fair reading of the evidence is something like:

  • For most adolescents, total time on social media has a small, probably trivial association with mental health.

  • For a minority of adolescents who use social media in compulsive, distress driven ways, the association with poor outcomes is larger and may be clinically relevant.

  • We have some experimental hints that cutting use can help, but not enough to support confident large scale causal claims.

By contrast, the evidence linking alcohol, drugs and gambling to harm in adolescents is overwhelming. There is no serious debate about whether heavy drinking, early drug use or adolescent gambling increase risk of bad outcomes. The argument is about the best mix of taxation, regulation and treatment, not about whether the harms exist.

If you are ranking risk factors purely on evidence, “time spent on social media” is not in the same league as alcohol, drugs or gambling.

2. Philosophical lenses on social media bans

Given that empirical backdrop, how should we think about something as heavy handed as an under 16 social media ban?

Different philosophical traditions put the emphasis in different places. Three questions keep coming back:

  1. How bad is the harm, and for whom.

  2. How much do we trust the state compared with parents and platforms.

  3. Do we want to train citizens for autonomy inside a flawed attention economy, or shield them and hope to fix the system before they enter.

Classical liberalism.

On a Mill style harm principle view, the state should step in only to prevent serious harm to others, not to protect people from themselves. Children are a partial exception, since their autonomy is limited and the state already sets age limits for alcohol, sex, driving and so on. A classical liberal could accept targeted rules that deal with clear harms, but a blanket ban on whole platforms interferes with freedom of expression and association, and overrides parental judgment. Given that the evidence points to small average harms, it is hard to argue that the high bar for coercive state action has been met.

Child centred rights.

Taking the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child seriously means treating children as rights holders, not simply as passive objects of protection. They have rights to seek information, express views and associate with others, as well as rights to protection. A ban can be cast as a right to protection from manipulative platform design. It can also be criticised as sacrificing the rights of competent 14 or 15 year olds to participate in online culture and politics, and as cutting off lifeline communities for queer or otherwise marginalised teens. On this view, the state should be very reluctant to impose blanket restrictions that do not distinguish between different young people.

Strong paternalism.

A more paternalistic philosophy is comfortable with the idea that the state should sometimes override individual or parental preferences “for their own good”, particularly for vulnerable groups. If you see social media as the new tobacco, the temptation is obvious: just keep children away until they are 16, whatever clever workarounds they manage. This view puts less weight on fine grained evidence and more on a general sense that the environment is toxic and that firms will not self regulate. The cost is a long list of knock on restrictions, since once you admit broad paternalism it is hard to draw principled lines.

Consequentialism.

A consequentialist asks only: what policy optimises overall welfare. If you assume that the ban sharply reduces harmful use, reduces anxiety and self harm, shifts kids toward healthier activities and does not create serious new harms, then you support it. If you accept the small average effect sizes, the likely workarounds, the privacy costs of age verification, and the loss of positive online communities for some groups, the picture flips. On realistic assumptions, the net impact of this particular ban is at best unclear and quite plausibly negative compared with more targeted design regulation plus mental health support.

Virtue and autonomy.

A virtue ethics angle is interested in the kind of character we are helping to form. Constant algorithmic stimulation is not a neutral backdrop. It shapes attention, patience and self control. You can argue that a period of protection from the worst attention factories during adolescence gives young people room to develop better habits. You can also argue that a pure ban denies them practice in managing temptations and learning to live well with technology. Either way, if the policy simply delays exposure until 16 with no education or scaffolding, it is an odd approach to cultivating responsible digital citizens.

Across these perspectives, there is no single correct answer. But they sharpen what the real disputes are about. This is less a fight over whether children deserve protection, and more a fight over how much power the state should wield, how much respect we give to child and parental agency, and whether we think design level interventions are preferable to blunt prohibitions.

3. How well does an under 16 ban actually work?

Even if you think the harms are serious and the state should lean in, you still have to ask whether the instrument works.

There are several obvious problems.

It is easy to work around.

Any enforcement scheme relies on age verification. Platforms will use self declaration, age inference, selfies, third party age assurance services or some combination. Tech literate teenagers will route around this with VPNs, burner accounts, older friends’ details, or by moving to smaller, less regulated platforms. You end up in the familiar pattern where compliant families follow the law, non compliant ones exploit loopholes, and the most vulnerable teens are often the most determined to find side doors.

It has privacy costs for everyone.

To keep under 16s out, platforms have to get better at knowing who is under 16. That pushes the system toward more pervasive data collection and profiling. The state can prohibit mandatory use of government ID, but the pressure to build or contract age verification infrastructure is obvious. There is a real risk that a policy justified as “protecting children” accelerates a wider surveillance trend.

It undermines parental agency.

Parents already have direct control over phones, devices, app stores and home rules. They can deny smartphones entirely, delay social media for their own kids, or allow carefully supervised access. A ban removes the option where a thoughtful parent allows their mature 15 year old to use locked down social media for specific purposes. It also encourages a culture of quiet evasion, where parents and children collude in breaking rules they consider unreasonable.

It ignores the design problem.

The deeper issue is not simply that teenagers exist on social media. It is the recommender systems, infinite scroll, notifications and engagement incentives that shape what users see and how long they stay. The ban hardly touches the design of the system. It simply says “come back when you are 16.” That might delay exposure for some. It does nothing for 16 to 25 year olds, who are also vulnerable, and it does not reward platforms that redesign their products to be less predatory.

It has opportunity costs.

Political and regulatory bandwidth is finite. A big symbolic ban that dominates the headlines can crowd out quieter but more effective reforms: algorithmic transparency, ad restrictions for minors, design standards for feeds and notifications, funding for school based digital literacy, and expanded youth mental health services. Once the government has “done something big”, the temptation to declare victory is strong.

None of this means the policy has no upsides. It probably will reduce usage for a segment of younger teens whose parents are not particularly engaged. It sends a clear signal to platforms that governments are willing to take tough action. It may shift norms so that parents feel more confident delaying smartphones or social media and can say “the law is on my side.”

But if the underlying empirical signal is small and highly heterogeneous, and if the harms are concentrated in subgroups with problematic use, then a policy that is both crude and easily circumvented looks poorly matched to the problem.

4. Where does that leave us?

Start from the evidence. The association between social media use and adolescent mental health is real but small for most, more serious for a minority with addictive patterns of use, and entangled with a long list of other social and economic changes. It is nowhere near as clear or as strong as the evidence for harms from alcohol, drugs or gambling in adolescents.

Layer on the philosophy. If you care about child rights and liberal freedoms, you are naturally wary of blanket bans that override parental judgment and erase the difference between a competent 15 year old and an 11 year old. If you are strongly paternalist, you may be more comfortable, but you still need a policy that works in practice and does not generate worse side effects.

Finally, look at the instrument. A national under 16 ban on social media is easy to explain and politically attractive. It is also leaky, privacy heavy and tangential to the core design problems of the attention economy.

A more proportionate response would focus on:

  • Serious enforcement of under 13 rules that already exist.

  • Tiered protections for 13 to 17 year olds that change how platforms can target, recommend and notify, rather than simply whether they may exist.

  • Binding design standards for addictive features when minors are present.

  • Investment in digital literacy and mental health support rather than only constraint.

Personal addendum

On first principles, I lean toward child centred rights and liberal freedoms. Children are not simply passive objects to be protected. They are emerging citizens with their own interests in information, expression and association. Parents are not simply obstacles to be bypassed by the state. They are usually the best placed to calibrate what their particular child can handle.

From that perspective, I am sceptical of any blanket ban that excludes all under 16 year olds from major online spaces, regardless of maturity, context or parental consent. When you add in the weakness of the average evidence, and the practical workarounds, this particular policy looks like a bad fit: rhetorically strong, empirically underpowered and structurally clumsy.

There is a serious problem to solve. But if we care about both children and freedom, we should spend less time congratulating ourselves for simple bans, and more time doing the harder work of reshaping the digital environment they are growing up in.

*Note. Drafted with input from GPT 5. I have not double checked the evidence review but aligns with what I have read. Also see Peter Gray for a child rights centred view and critique of evidence.


Deirdre McCloskey: Liberal defence of queer, Permission to be queer: the case for liberty

McCloskey on liberal defense of queerness

Summary of McCloskey’s lecture and the Q&A, focusing on queer issues, liberalism, and the state. My bullets edited by AI and summary (end), and long form start.  (Based on YT )

Deirdre McCloskey talk about queerness and liberalism at the LSE. It was part memoir, part political theory, part hand drawn graph in the air. McCloskey is funny and sharp and also quite blunt about who scares her.

She used to be Donald. She transitioned in the mid 1990s, in her fifties, and became Deirdre, keeping the initial D so librarians could follow the trail. Economist by training, historian and philosopher by practice, she situates herself with Adam Smith, Mary Wollstonecraft and Thomas Paine rather than with modern technocrats.

The talk was anchored around a simple phrase she is turning into a book for Chicago: equality of permission.

Equality of permission

McCloskey’s claim is that the best version of liberalism is not about equal outcomes, and not even about fully equal opportunity, which is impossible to deliver in any serious sense. It is about equality of permission.

Everyone should be allowed to have a go. The law removes formal obstacles. You can speak, trade, worship, move, love, change your gender, write obscure economics papers. The state does not promise you a result, it simply gets out of your way.

She calls this primary liberalism and dates its breakthrough moments to Jefferson’s 1776 “all men are created equal” and the 1789 French Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen. She reads both as demands to be allowed onto the pitch, not demands for the state to fix the scoreline.

Then comes a second wave in the mid nineteenth century. On the Continent this shows up as European socialism. In Britain and the United States, as New Liberalism and Progressivism. It is the moment when people become proud of using the state from the top down. Clear the slums, rebuild Paris, plan the city, regulate the poor. Urban planning and social engineering are born.

The first liberalism is bottom up. The second starts to say, we know best.

You do not have to guess which one she prefers.

“Do anything you want, but do not spook the horses”

She grounds this in a line from her grandmother that she clearly loves:

Do anything you want, but do not spook the horses.

In other words: be queer, transition, live strangely, write odd books. The line is not drawn at what offends taste, it is drawn at serious harm. No dynamite in the town square. No big externalities.

She links this to her Christianity. She became Anglican in 1998. She quotes both Jesus and Rabbi Hillel. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Do not do to others what you would not want done to you. Very basic ethics. She is happy to say this is not sophisticated political philosophy, it is simply “let us just get along”.

The obvious problem is that this kind of liberalism can be vulnerable to people who are perfectly willing to use free institutions in order to destroy them. Liberties for those who want to end liberty. She knows that, and still thinks the liberal starting point is right.

The personal story

She does not just argue from theory. She anchors it in her own body.

At eleven she says she fell asleep praying for two things: to wake up a girl and to stop stuttering. Roughly two percent of boys stutter and around half a percent of girls, the ratio is surprisingly stable across cultures. At fifty three she jokes that she got half her wish. She transitioned in 1995 in a liberal enough society that she could.

Her mother’s reaction matters here. You have had a man’s career, which was an advantage, she told her, now you get to be an old woman, which is better. McCloskey repeats that line a few times, with a certain relish.

She also pushes back on a neat narrative that she was always an obviously feminine boy. She presents herself as macho. Captain of her high school American football team. Married to a woman for thirty years. Attracted to women. Gender identity sat underneath that life, not on the surface.

One of the biggest discoveries after transition was female friendship. In her view, men think they have many friends but mostly do not. Women form lots of light friendships quickly and then a small number of very deep ones, which are emotionally costly. Transition changed who befriended her and how. The social pattern shifted along with the hormones and clothes.

Queer life, DEI and the state

On queerness she is clear. Contact with “the queers, the immigrants, the others” is one of the gifts of the modern world if we let it be. Reading queer memoirs, or simply having queer colleagues and neighbours, expands our sense of what a human life can look like. It makes us wiser.

She defends diversity, equity and inclusion as practice and ethos. She also draws a line at state enforcement. She wants universities, firms and individuals to practise inclusion out of ethical conviction. She does not want a bureaucracy writing quotas and detailed mandates into law. It is very McCloskey: change hearts, remove legal barriers, be wary of giving the state more coercive tools.

Here she moves into economist mode. She draws a graph in the air.

On the vertical axis: human flourishing. Income, wellbeing, spiritual growth, however you want to define it. There is a zero line. Below it sits Orwell’s boot on a human face forever. Above it sits ordinary decent life. She adds Cadbury’s Whole Nut as a small but important component of British flourishing and complains about what Hershey has done to the US version.

On the horizontal axis: amount of coercion, especially state coercion.

Her argument goes like this. At zero coercion, life is not great. If your three year old runs into the road, you physically restrain them. You do not hold a seminar on autonomy. Some state coercion is essential. Police, courts, basic criminal law.

The problem, she says, is that many economists and technocrats behave as if you can keep adding regulation and nudges and always climb higher up the flourishing axis. More tricks, more programmes, more control, always more.

A liberal who believes in diminishing returns should be sceptical. In her picture the curve rises at first, then flattens, then turns down. At some point extra state power starts to reduce human flourishing. For her, using the state to police bathrooms, clothing, pronouns or consensual sex is well into the downward part of that curve.

She is also insistent on a bright line between words and violence. Harsh speech and physical coercion are not the same category. Words hurt, of course. As a trans woman in the Netherlands who could not pass well in early years, she knows what it is to be read as “a man in a dress”. It is painful. But she can live with insults and misgendering. What she cannot accept is being arrested for using the women’s loo. The legal system should focus on actual violence and the threat of it, not on policing speech.

Where she draws lines

She spends time on Kathleen Stock. McCloskey treats Stock as intelligent and as a friend, not as a cartoon villain. They have debated on trans women and single sex spaces at the University of Austin.

McCloskey disagrees strongly with Stock’s view that trans women should be excluded from women only spaces such as changing rooms and toilets. The implied logic is that you end up with a police officer and some kind of gender inspector outside every public bathroom. She finds that absurd and dangerous.

On elite sport, though, she draws a different boundary. She agrees that post puberty male bodies should not compete in women’s events. Physiology matters. Heart size, muscle mass, frame. If you care about women’s sport at all, you have to protect the category. Her compromise is that someone who blocks puberty early and never develops male secondary traits is a different case from someone who transitions at eighteen and wants to race in the women’s 100 metres.

Bathrooms yes. Women’s Olympic finals no.

On affirmative action she is blunt. Programmes are easy to start and hard to end. The better route is to remove explicit legal barriers and then let people compete. She uses Ruth Bader Ginsburg as an example. Ginsburg graduated near the top of her class and still could not get hired because she was a woman. She became a professor and then a lawyer who spent decades chipping away at formal barriers rather than lobbying for engineered outcomes.

Equal outcomes are impossible. Perfect equality of opportunity is impossible. Equality of permission is feasible. Let women be pilots, lawyers, MPs, and stop the law saying no.

Queer rights, populism and making liberalism cool again

A student asks what really shifts queer rights: culture, law, or economics. McCloskey points to same sex marriage. In 1990, in the US, gay marriage was politically unthinkable. Within about twenty years it was law. Spain, not Britain, was first in Europe. The key, in her view, was framing it as equality of permission. Your soul and my soul have the same worth. You marry the person you love. I marry the person I love. The state should treat us on the same terms. Once phrased like that, change can be fast.

The end of the session turns to the backlash. In the US, MAGA politics has made trans people the new hate target. In Britain she sees hostility to trans women more from some segments of the left. She thinks the United States is now sliding down the wrong side of the coercion curve toward more authoritarian reflex and less liberal instinct. She calls Trump a bad man, quite straightforwardly, and notes that he is not even a particularly clever authoritarian. The smart ones raise the temperature on the frog slowly.

How to respond. Her answer is mostly cultural. Make liberalism cool again. She jokes about calling it adultism. Other ideologies treat the state as parent and citizens as children. Liberalism treats people as grown ups. Invite young people into that. Do not just write papers. Ask artists, musicians, filmmakers to tell stories of freedom and responsibility.

…for McCloskey queer lives and liberalism are not in tension. They belong together. Let people live as themselves. Change hearts faster than you give governments new tools. Watch the state like a hawk. And, in the background, keep her grandmother in mind: do anything you want, just do not spook the horses.

This is bullet point version.

1. Who she is and how she frames herself

  • Trained as an economist, now works as historian, philosopher, social and political theorist. 

  • (I found it interesting, she started as a socialist, and now would be a Christian liberterian or liberal - as opposed to Randian. Difference, she cares about the poor (like she did as socialist), but Randian’s dont so much. That why she would defined capitalism, as good for poor people)

  • Self description:

    • “Once a man until 1995”, previously Donald McCloskey.

    • Transitioned in a liberal society and chose the name Deirdre to keep the initial D for librarians and because of its Irish roots and feminine connotations.

  • Jokes that she is “Donald’s smarter sister” and that she has become wiser through experience.

  • Strong identification with classical liberalism in the line of Adam Smith, Mary Wollstonecraft, Thomas Paine, Thoreau.

  • Calls herself a “classics groupie” and positions herself explicitly as an eighteenth century style liberal.



2. Core thesis: “Equality of permission” and primary liberalism

  • She is finishing a book called Equality of Permission.

  • Key idea:

    • Liberalism at its core is about equality of permission, not equality of outcome or even engineered equality of opportunity.

    • Everyone should be “allowed to have a go”, to try things, without artificial obstacles.

  • She calls this “primary liberalism” and dates its political breakthrough to:

    • 1776: Jefferson’s “all men are created equal”.

    • 1789: French Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen.

  • Primary liberalism:

    • Bottom up.

    • About removing legal barriers and giving people permission to act, speak, trade, migrate, love.

    • Not about micromanaging social outcomes.



3. Secondary liberalism, socialism, and progressivism

  • She distinguishes a second wave of liberal or progressive thought around 1848:

    • Continental revolutions and the birth of European socialism, including Marx but not only Marx.

    • In Britain and the United States this second wave appears as “New Liberalism” or “progressivism”.

  • Features of this second wave:

    • Top down use of the state to “help the poor” and redesign society.

    • Urban planning and clearance (for example Haussmann’s reconstruction of Paris).

    • Strong belief in state capacity to engineer better outcomes.

  • Her verdict:

    • Primary liberalism is bottom up and permission focused.

    • Secondary liberalism and socialism are top down, state heavy, and prone to overreach.



4. Her grandmother’s rule: “Do anything you want, but don’t spook the horses”

  • She builds a lot on a family motto:

    • “Do anything you want, but do not spook the horses.”

  • Interpretation:

    • People should be free to be queer, change gender, write economics articles, live as they like.

    • The boundary is significant external harm to others, not mere disapproval.

    • No metaphorical “stick of dynamite in the town square” that panics society.

  • She treats this as a simple, humane formulation of liberal ethics.



5. Christianity, Rabbi Hillel, and the ethics she claims

  • She became an Anglican Christian in 1998.

  • She anchors her liberalism in:

    • Jesus’ formulation: “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”

    • Rabbi Hillel’s older formulation: “Do not do unto others what you would not want done to you.”

  • She calls these “gospels of love and justice”.

  • Political ethic:

    • “Let us just get along” is how she characterises modern liberalism at its best.

    • Minimal, non sophisticated politics that simply aims at peaceful coexistence and mutual respect.



6. Personal narrative about gender and stuttering

  • Childhood:

    • As an eleven year old, she prayed at night for two miracles:

      • To wake up as a girl.

      • To stop stuttering.

    • She notes that about 2 percent of boys stutter and about 0.5 percent of girls do, across cultures.

  • At age 53, in 1995, she transitions:

    • Interprets this as finally getting half of her childhood prayer.

    • Credits the freedom of a modern liberal society for making transition possible.

  • Her mother’s reaction:

    • Mother viewed it as Deirdre gaining both experiences, a career as a man and old age as a woman, which she presents as a kind of enlargement of life.

  • She emphasises:

    • She was a very “macho” man, captain level high school football player, straight, married to a woman for 30 years.

    • Transition was not about being a feminine gay man, but about something more basic and persistent in gender identity.



7. Discovery of female friendship

  • One of her biggest surprises after transition:

    • She claims men rarely have many true friends, even if they think they do.

    • Women often have many light friendships formed quickly and a small number of very deep friendships, which she found “costly” but profound.

  • She paints her transition as a revelation in social and emotional structures, not just clothes and pronouns.



8. Queer people, DEI, and diversity as human enrichment

  • She defends diversity, equity, and inclusion in a “sensible” form:

    • Accepts that DEI can be taken too far, as can drinking water.

    • Argues that contact with “queers, immigrants, other people” enlarges our humanity.

    • Reading queer autobiographies, novels, and meeting people different from oneself helps produce wiser adults.

  • She jokes that “DEI” is literally her first name, so she is sensitive about attacks on DEI.

  • Crucial distinction:

    • She wants individuals and institutions to practice DEI out of ethical conviction.

    • She does not want the state to coerce DEI policies as a direct programmatic mandate.



9. The diagram: human flourishing vs coercion

She presents her central policy intuition in a simple diagram:

  • Axes:

    • Vertical axis: human flourishing, which can mean income, spiritual flourishing, or broader welfare.

    • Horizontal axis: amount of coercion, especially state coercion.

  • Starting point:

    • Some coercion is clearly necessary and positive, for example grabbing a three year old child away from traffic.

    • She accepts police, criminal law, and the state’s monopoly of violence as necessary.

  • Main claim:

    • Most economists act as if more regulation and coercion always increases human flourishing.

    • In that view the curve keeps sloping upward as you add regulation.

  • Her liberal view:

    • There are diminishing returns to state coercion.

    • The curve rises at low levels of coercion, plateaus, then falls.

    • Past a certain point, additional regulation makes things worse.

  • Application to queer and gender issues:

    • Using the state to police bathrooms, dress, gender identity, or consensual sexual behaviour is beyond the optimal point.

    • That kind of intervention is on the downward part of the curve, reducing human flourishing.



10. Physical coercion vs words

  • She rejects the idea that harsh speech is “coercion” in the same sense as physical force:

    • Argues for a bright line between physical coercion and verbal persuasion.

    • Says equating “verbal rape” with physical rape trivialises actual violence.

    • Uses the childhood line “sticks and stones can break my bones, but names can never hurt me” to capture the distinction, while admitting words do hurt.

  • Practical implication:

    • She can tolerate being misgendered and insulted.

    • She cannot tolerate being arrested or physically coerced for using the women’s bathroom.



11. The state as a danger to queer people

  • Cites political philosopher Judith Shklar’s “liberalism of fear”:

    • Liberalism centrally concerned with fearing the state’s coercive capacity.

  • Historical examples:

    • Northern Europe had a century long terror against male homosexuals, with criminal sanctions.

    • Southern Europe often treated homosexuality as a sin but not a crime.

  • Central argument:

    • States get captured by hate coalitions which then use law against Jews, Catholics, blacks, queers and other minorities.

    • Therefore a liberal should be deeply wary of giving the state new tools to regulate queer lives.

  • She stresses that states have “never been the friend of queers” in the long historical record.



12. Trans issues, Kathleen Stock, and “the bathroom problem”

  • She credits philosopher Kathleen Stock as serious and intelligent but disagrees with her on policy.

  • Stock’s position as she presents it:

    • Trans women should not be allowed in women only spaces such as changing rooms, possibly toilets.

    • Stock worries about safety and violation of sex based boundaries.

  • McCloskey’s critique:

    • Says this would effectively require a police officer and a “gender assigner” outside every public toilet, which she finds absurd.

    • Sees it as an unnecessary expansion of state coercion into intimate life.

  • Her own position:

    • She uses women’s toilets simply to pee, not to assault anyone, and sees herself as no threat.

    • She does not want the state involved in deciding where she may urinate.

    • Thinks gender issues for children should be handled by families and professionals, not parliaments.



13. Sports and fairness: where she agrees with Stock

In the Q&A, she draws a clear line on elite women’s sport:

  • She fully agrees with the view that:

    • Post puberty male to female transitioners should not compete in women only elite sports such as swimming or running.

    • Male puberty creates lasting physiological advantages in heart size, muscle mass, and frame.

  • Her principle:

    • If a child has consistent cross gender identity and uses puberty blockers early, and thus never develops male traits, they might fairly compete as women.

    • But allowing a mature male body to enter women’s competitions destroys the point of women’s sport.

  • She calls this “a no brainer” and treats it as common sense fairness, separate from bathroom and changing room issues.



14. United States vs United Kingdom, and the new “hate group”

  • She claims in the United States:

    • The MAGA movement has made “transgenderism” the new hate target.

    • She explicitly likens the pattern to the classic “first they came for the Jews” escalation sequence.

  • She distinguishes:

    • Conservatives she respects (for example George Will).

    • A “hateful crowd” currently wielding power who use trans people as scapegoats.

  • In the United Kingdom:

    • She says hostility to trans women currently comes more from segments of the left, especially some feminists.

  • She sees both right wing and left wing variants of illiberalism that weaponise queer issues.



15. Affirmative action, DEI, and changing hearts instead of laws

  • Question on affirmative action for women and minorities:

    • She opposes affirmative action as a permanent state policy.

    • Argues that once a program starts, it rarely ends, even when no longer needed.

  • Uses Ruth Bader Ginsburg as an example:

    • Ginsburg faced direct discrimination as one of a tiny number of female law students and could not get a job.

    • Ginsburg’s legal work sought removal of barriers, not guaranteed equal outcomes.

  • Her distinction:

    • Equality of opportunity in a strict sense is impossible, because humans are varied in talents, preferences, languages, and histories.

    • Equality of outcomes is impossible and undesirable.

    • Equality of permission, which focuses on removing legal and institutional obstacles, is attainable.

  • On DEI:

    • She wants DEI to be practiced voluntarily by institutions and individuals, not enforced top down by the state.



16. Family, gender, and power

  • She emphasises the importance of the family as:

    • The place where we learn love, care, and basic social relations.

    • Also a possible site of serious oppression.

  • Examples:

    • Romanian dictator Ceaușescu forcing women into the labour market and placing children into state orphanages to raise GDP, which she calls devastating for mental health.

    • The Roman paterfamilias having legal power of life and death over his children.

    • Bolsonaro’s remark that he would execute a gay son, which she treats as an example of family based cruelty.

  • She insists:

    • Liberal analysis cannot ignore the family simply because libertarians often focus only on state and markets.

    • Care work and parenting are real work and central to human flourishing.



17. Queer rights traction: culture, law, and economics

In reply to a student asking why queer rights rise and fall and what drives progress:

  • She argues progress is highly culture specific and can change fast.

  • Example of same sex marriage:

    • In 1990, the idea of two men or two women marrying was completely off the table in mainstream US politics.

    • Within a short time, reframing it as a simple matter of equal civil permission transformed public acceptance.

    • Spain is noted as the first European country to legalise gay marriage, ahead of the UK bureaucracy.

  • Her view of drivers:

    • Cultural frames and narratives are key.

    • When queer rights are framed as basic fairness and equal soul value, they become more acceptable.

    • This is aligned with major religious traditions that treat souls as equal.



18. Access to hormone therapy and who should pay

  • Question: should state provided hormone therapy be seen as equality of permission or opportunity, and should the state fund it?

  • Her answer:

    • She does not think the state should pay for transitions.

    • Believes transition is cheaper than many imagine, roughly comparable to a small car.

    • States that female to male transitions are particularly inexpensive in biological terms because male hormones quickly change voice, muscle, and personality.

    • Male to female is harder because male secondary characteristics cannot be fully undone.

  • Her principle:

    • Gender change should be a private matter financially.

    • She does not see a strong case for transition as a public expense, in contrast with her strong case against the state banning or obstructing it.



19. Populism, authoritarianism, and “making liberalism cool again”

  • She worries about:

    • The decline of liberal norms in the last 10 to 20 years due to populism and anti liberal politics.

    • Citizens losing “popular liberal consciousness”.

  • Response strategy:

    • Change hearts, not only policies, by making liberalism attractive, especially to the young.

    • She jokingly rebrands liberalism as “adultism”, since other political philosophies treat citizens as children and the state as parent.

    • Argues that many young people want to be treated as grown ups, not as dependants of the state.

  • Role of the arts:

    • Calls for artists, novelists, filmmakers, musicians to carry messages of freedom and adult responsibility.

    • Cites Mick Jagger as a symbol of cultural influence and jokes about his LSE connection.



20. Trump, the US, and where she thinks the curve is now

  • She is explicitly alarmed by Trump:

    • Says he moves towards authoritarianism with new outrages almost every week.

    • Believes he has a strong instinct for exploiting resentment among Americans who feel bossed around by the state.

    • Calls him “a bad man” in straightforward moral language.

  • On the coercion curve:

    • She believes the United States is currently on the downward part of the curve, where increased state coercion reduces human flourishing.

    • She compares “smart” authoritarians, who move slowly like the metaphorical frog in heating water, with Trump, whom she calls not smart but still dangerous.

  • Prescription:

    • Maintain a single, accountable state with a monopoly of violence, but watch it very closely.

    • Resist expansions of coercive power, especially those targeting minorities like trans people.





That is the gist: McCloskey mixes personal trans narrative, queer experience, Christian ethics, classical liberal theory, and a blunt distrust of state power. Her through line is simple: let people live as they are, do not bring coercive law into toilets and gender, accept limits on what the state can fix, and fight like hell to keep the coercion curve from bending downward.