Occupation of the mind and body.

Jasbir Puar, in her article “On Torture: Abu Ghraib,” deals with the concept of exceptionalism and explains the case of the Abu Ghraib photos as an example of this idea/ideology, and particularly as an example of how the US constructs (or reinforces) its own identity as an imperial power and the subjugation of non-white/American bodies through visual culture/visuality. As we discussed in class, the concept of exceptionalism has to do with a certain type of distinction and a superiority that comes with/is embedded/ is reinforced with the formation of this distinction. In a way, the articles we read from Carby and Mirzoeff work in conjunction with Puar to prove her point behind the idea of exceptionalism.
The overriding discourse that came out of this whole scandal was that these photographs – taken as self evident truths, but let me return to this later – showed, or documented, was an anomaly in military behavior. As Puar points out in her article, the president himself stated, “This is not the nature of the American people”. Puar’s, Mirzoeff’s, and Carby’s work in fact claim the opposite and that in fact, this has been “standard operating procedure” all through out history as part of colonial enterprises. But what they are talking about is not only torture itself as a tool of imperialisms or war, but also the idea of the “spectacle of torture”, and how this helps create discourses and frames of seeing the world. These photographs evidence, for example, a position of power over bodies, these bodies are non-white and are being dominated and manipulated by whites. This of course, is the story of our culture, and the world (sadly). To believe that these images represent an abnormality is to ignore the deeply rooted imperialistic and racist undertones they contain. Carby, and others, for example, talk about the photos of lynching that were so popular back in the day and that are evidence of a socio-cultural desire of showing off superiority and of sharing the torture of inferior bodies.

I think that the film Standard Operating Procedure, for various reasons, is trying to dismantle the notion of this incident as “exceptional”, “out of the ordinary”, but in a more superficial way than the critique Puar and others construct. In the documentary the interviewees provide us with their own take on the story and try to save their own behinds as they do so, trying to take off the blame from their backs. That nobody did anything to stop them from doing these things clearly shows us that there was no intention of stopping them. Through the testimony we learn that many people, interrogators, for example, came into the premises repeatedly, that nobody thought to condemn this seems a bit strange. I think the film is superficial, however, because it doesn’t get at the core of the problem, as Puar works does. The film presents the events, the testimonies, the images and lets us do the rest, without real critique of any of it.

I mentioned this in class, but to construct this issue as an anomaly in military procedures is a cheap trick that indeed is obscuring the nature of the military and of war and imperialism: to dominate, conquer. With peace the military loses its purpose. It’s winning or losing, some get to write history, some don’t. So how can your power over a group be best exemplified than by invasion, than by doing as you please with physical bodies. But it not only becomes and issue of real tangible bodies, but an issue of territoriality, of the real space these bodies occupy themselves. The power is also exerted by doing the conquering over there, by invading far from home, by torturing from a far, in the land of the occupied, because they are the threat. At the same time, for me, this is also an issue of non-physical territoriality, of the space bodies occupy in a socio-historical continuum, in an imaginary. How are we remembered? How are we understood?

I think my brain has been dried out after talking about it so much.

Talking about technologies and digital media today reminded me of the scandal behind some pictures of Puerto Rican doctors working in Haiti posing with caskets, soldiers and guns and mutilated bodies.

http://beinglatino.wordpress.com/2010/02/01/the-puerto-rican-doctor-photo-scandal-is-no-big-deal-really-2/

Abu Ghraib is the Banality of Evil

We, the viewers, are told that the Secretary of Defense didn’t want to see anything beyond the hanging chambers. Then we are shown a picture in which the Secretary of Defense is giving a disgusted look. We do not know if he is disgusted by what Saddam Hussein’s people had implemented in the prison. We only know that he looks displeased. The presentation of the photograph, however, is embedded within several shots of U.S. soldiers looking strong and capable in photographs which I might otherwise deem to be patriotic.

When Javal Davis is presented to the viewer, he speaks of arriving in this disgusting place full of fecal matter and urine and decaying bodies. The photograph presented at this time depicts a U.S. soldier standing on a mound with a rather gross looking atmosphere behind him, full of grey-brown liquid. The picture may have no connection to the speaker, but it certainly illustrates the type of atmosphere in which they arrived. It also depicts the manner in which the United States occupied that space—they were tourists. The picture seems to say to the view “Isn’t this place disgusting? I can’t wait to do my duty and then get back home to humane conditions.” The area around Abu Ghraib is not the normal space in which a U.S. soldier—or citizen—would inhabit. The picture could’ve easily been of someone standing in front of the Eiffel Tower or Ground Zero or the Pyramid of Menkaure…just showing you that I was there—documenting that I have traveled to somewhere new and/or important, regardless of the background.

The photograph of Lynndie England holding the leash with a prisoner dragging (crawling?) behind her is shown as a cropped photograph throughout much of the movie. At least one other woman was beside her and yet the image which circulated the prison and which was most frequently used by the media only showed England. The reasoning for this is unclear. Was Graner trying to protect the other woman? Is Errol Morris trying to suggest this as a possibility?

The photographs of Standard Operating Procedure, torture, sunsets, good times with friends, etc. is all scrambled together within each of the cameras that Morris used. Morris wanted to show that these were not just documentation of specific events, but a lifestyle there. No one would be taken aback at the prison if they were to go through a camera because they are things that they had seen—took part in. I am not suggesting that every American stationed at Abu Ghraib enjoyed the torture sessions and were taking pictures to remember the good times. I am, however, stating that Morris wished us to consider how mundane these events were to those who took part.

The photographs are portrayed in the movie with a white frame against a black background. My first thought was that they are presented this way so that they stand out—that it was all about visibility. I then realized how much the photographs presented in this manner resemble a scrapbook. Morris is suggesting that these photographs are, to the Americans who took them, akin to what any of us would put into a scrapbook at home. I began to think of which events I would document in this fashion—especially if I were abroad. I would document everyday life if for no other reason than to show how different it is from my life at home in the northeastern USA. The scrapbook idea also brings up the question of cropping. Of course I would crop photographs going into my personal scrapbook…if it made them fit better. Morris has me questioning if that is not exactly what Graner did at Abu Ghraib—made things fit to his liking. In any case, the photographs are presented as just some fun pictures that Graner and friends took while abroad.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2007/09/18/arts/20070919_ALBUMSS_AUDIOSS.html

At the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum lives a scrapbook of an Aushwitz officer. Unlike the photographs taken at Abu Ghraib, the pictures are PG and, for the most part, depict a bunch of nice looking men and women having a grand time just socializing. Some of the time the pictures look boring—mundane life. This is what becomes terrifying for many people. The Nazis were as human as those involved in the atrocities committed at Abu Ghraib and as you or I. Torture and genocide are not exceptions which occur sporadically—they are concepts which humans are astoundingly capable of carrying out.

Standard Operating Procedure. Dir. Errol Morris, 2008

http://www.ushmm.org/museum/exhibit/online/ssalbum/ 9/30/10

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2007/09/18/arts/20070919_ALBUMSS_AUDIOSS.html 9/30/10

The Scandal Was That It's Not That Scandalous

In 2004, photos of torture and abuse at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq became public. With this outing came lots of reactions. Many people were outraged and many Americans were embarrassed that people from their civilized country could behave in such a grotesque manner – not only in the active torture but also in the documenting of it. People were surprised that pictures were taken and that it was made out to be such a spectacle for the cameras. People were shocked the torturers seemed to be having so much fun in the images. And even though all this shock and outrage is certainly well founded, it really should not have been as surprising as it was.

Hazel Carby’s article “A Strange and Bitter Crop: The Spectacle of Torture” takes a look at why the fact that Americans torture and show others should not be so astounding. In the article she writes, “the taking of photographs and videos, the preservation and the circulation of the visual image of the tortured/lynched body, the erotic sexual exploitation which produced pleasures in the torturers – all these practices are continuities in the history of American racism” (Carby). See, it is/was not an uncommon occurrence for the torture or lynching of non-white bodies. And with this torture and lynching comes the documentation and displaying of it. Carby goes on to say that “[t]here were almost 5,000 documented instances of lynching in the United States between post-civil was ‘reconstruction’ and the mid 20^th century… The photographs of these bodies were not designed merely for storage, but rather functioned as public documents” (Carby). The images of these lynched bodies were used as postcards, as advertisements, as part of portfolios for photographers. A public spectacle was absolutely made out of these events. So it should not be astonishing when Americans today act like they did in the past.

I was looking around the internet for information on lynching and torture done by Americans and I came across this great cartoon:

Now when we take a look at this cartoon, we can see a lot of things going on. We see a middle aged, large white man with the words “USA, World Cop” written across his suit. He is holding a noose that is attached to a tree with the name “Iran” written on it. We also see another man behind the large white man. This figure is hooded and has “Southern Justice” written across his chest. His dress is eerily similar to what a member of the Ku Klux Klan would wear. Behind the hooded character is another tree with a three nooses hanging from it. In front of this tree is a sign that reads “Keep Out: White Tree.”

This cartoon visually shows exactly what Hazel Carby was talking about in her article. The past of America’s racism and violence towards non-white bodies is nicely illustrated by the hooded figure and the background tree. America’s current racism and violence toward non-white bodies is depicted nicely through the large white man and the Iran tree. [Editor’s note: I know Iran and Iraq are different places with different problems, but we started a war with both places and I’d place a bet that what happened in Abu Ghraib happens in Iran too.] The two figures are interacting quite nicely. In fact, the large white man seems to be letting the hooded figure in on a “joke” he’s playing. And just as there’s a relationship between the two figures in the cartoon, there is also a real life relationship between what the two are representing.

(Image Courtesy of: http://blogs.newamericamedia.org/bendib/817/the-lynching-of-iran)

A Picture Says One Thousand Words (from one thousand different mouths)

The photographs in Standard Operating Procedure are presented such that the viewer would expect that the torture going on in some photos is as every-day as eating a meal or going to a bazaar. The photos of torture are shown in sequence with photos of sunsets, the Secretary of Defense, soldiers in the field, and daily activities. They also show photographs of the soldiers “at play” in the prison at Abu Ghraib, playing jokes on one another and even getting into some of the positions that they force the prisoners into at later times. In such photographs, it seems that, to the soldiers, homoeroticism and humiliation are simply a game.

I ask: Which do you think is daily activity?

(http://avaxhome.ws/video/Ghosts_of_Abu_Ghraib.html)

(about.com)
(http://avaxhome.ws/video/Ghosts_of_Abu_Ghraib.html)

I say all of them. In every photograph, the soldiers look like they are having a good time. Every event is just another game to them. It is because of that fact that I can believe that they “were just following orders” (Standard Operating Procedure), but I cannot believe that they did not know that they were in the wrong. Torturing people should not be fun, and that was how they saw their tasks. It is obvious in their smiles, their dangling cigarettes, and their constant thumbs-up positions.

Many times, the most striking photographs are shown first at an extreme close-up on the screen, and then they are pulled away into a photograph that is framed in white. They are positioned on a black background, so that they are the only thing in view for the person watching the film. This is possibly to show the viewer that it is “just” a photograph, but also that it is the most important thing going on at that moment. The photos are centered on the screen, a place of importance in any piece of art. The size change is meant to grab the viewer’s attention. As the photograph gets smaller, you want to look at it closer to make sure you don’t miss any details. In this way, the production makes sure that you are really looking. This effect is not used on photographs of Rumsfeld or the sunset. There is an obvious difference between the photographs of torture and the photographs of every-day life. Or is there?

I am emotionally moved in a very different way when viewing a sunset against the Seven-Man-Pyramid. I cannot help but wonder how the photographers simply stood by, reinforcing the horrific behaviors of their peers. Those taking the photographs admitted to doing so, but said that they were sorry for doing so (Standard Operating Procedure). The soldiers were not sorry for the ways in which they tortured their prisoners, though; they were sorry that they got caught. The myth that a photograph is objective (Class notes) is only solidified further by the statements given by some of the soldiers in the documentary.

I was most stricken by the various statements given by Lynndie England. One of her first statements that what she was seeing was “unusual, weird, wrong” followed by stating that “an example had been set” made me feel like she was referring more to the “example” being one of how to torture, rather than how not to torture (Standard Operating Procedure). I did not find myself believing her when she said that, in the photograph of her holding a leash attached to a prisoner, that she was not pulling him. Other soldiers being interviewed agreed with her, and others did not. I have to agree with Judith Butler that the mandate for war photography must be that “the mandate of the photo must not be clear” (Butler). Every photograph in the documentary, on the news, and circulating the internet is up against speculation of its content. The trouble is in figuring out your own stance on the matter.

I feel that the method of showing the photographs in Standard Operating Procedure had a few motives. Morris wanted his audience to know that there are multiple stories about what happened. He wanted to show them that, from the metadata involved, the acts of torture were as common to the soldiers as eating a meal or hanging out in their own cells. I think, though, that most of all, he wanted to let them know that “Photographs expose, photographs cover up” (Morris, via class notes). If there is one thing that I am taking away from this unit, it is that there is much more to the story of Abu Ghraib than was ever let public, and that we, as citizens, will never know the whole truth.

Butler, Judith. “Torture, Sexual Politics, and the Ethics of Photography.” From “Thinking Humanity After Abu Ghraib” panel at Stanford University.

Class notes, Gendered Bodies in Visual Culture. September 23, 2010.

Standard Operating Procedure. Dir. Errol Morris, 2008

Tristam, Pierre. "Congress Bans Release of Abu Ghraib and Other Torture Images." Middle East Issues. http://middleeast.about.com/b/2009/10/21/congress-bans-release-of-abu-ghraib-and-other-torture-images.htm

Investigating: "The Scandal Was in the Coverup", and Deceit in Photo Proof

The documentary Standard Operating Procedure, directed by Errol Morris, begins with a short close-up interview that immediately voices-over to a dark screen. There, three beautiful and pastoral pictures of Iraqi sunsets framed by white, come into view one at a time. After the last picture is shown for a few moments, it begins to fall back into the blackness, as other fluttering white-framed pictures begin to also fall into frame, and thus also follow the course of disappearing into the vortex of black. We can make out images on some of these new pictures, and most are very unlike the serene “postcard” like photos we were shown at the beginning. We see images of people with bags on their heads, nakedness and seemingly violent torture. This raises a question: Why begin such a scene with three “postcard” like images? In her essay, “A Strange and Bitter Crop: The Spectacle of Torture,” Hazel Carby analyzes the medium of photography in trying to flesh-out what exactly went on at Abu Ghraib, in also correlating the images to an already-viewed narrative that can be seen in historical American lynching photography. She writes, “The importance of spectacles of abuse, the taking of photographs and videos, the preservation and circulation of the visual image of the tortured/lynched body, the erotic sexual exploitation which produced pleasure in the tortures – all these practices are continuities in the history of American racism. An examination of evidence of the spectacle of American racial subordination makes this clear” (Carby, 4). She develops her argument around the idea that, as lynching photos were made into postcards with inscriptions reading, ‘wish you were here,’ so were the Abu Ghraib photos which portrayed, “staged and highly ritualized performance as if the actors were following a script” (Carby, 6). Carby went on to argue that the young soldiers resembled, “high-school kids first trip abroad, smiling self-consciously while announcing to the natives that they have arrived, assuring themselves of their superiority and their right to dominate while saying 'hi' to mom back home (Carby, 7). In saying this, perhaps the director Morris set up his documentary at first to depict the “postcard” space that Carby argues. However, the musical score, done by the unmistaken Danny Elfman, is bouncy and creepy, which helps to create an aesthetic of something perverse—something abject. In addition, the voiceover explicitly says, “I wouldn’t recommend a vacation to Iraq anytime soon.” This perverse poses a new question: Not only does this film begin with three beautiful “postcard” like images, but what adverse relation do these photos have with those of Iraqi prison detainees being tortured by U.S. soldiers? Perhaps the answer is in a point Nicholas Mizoeff brings up about audience.

In his essay, “Invisible Empire: Visual Culture, Embodied Spectacle, and Abu Ghraib,” Mirzoeff counters Carby’s argument in saying that although lynching photos were intended for circulation as it was a communal event, “By, contrast, the photographs of Abu Ghraib were intended only for the consumption of the Army and its associates. The public interpellation of the radicalized subject by the trophies of lynching has been replaced by the invisible visibility of a police culture that claims that there is nothing to see while circulating its pixilated documents of imperial hierarchy around the Internet” (Mirzoeff, 30). In saying this, Mirzoeff is commenting on the community that the images are circulating. He writes, “These outcomes show that the Abu Ghraib photographs were not simply documents in the everyday sense of the term. To be exact, they were not even photographs in the analog sense of chemical reaction to light but instead were, for the most part, digital renditions of light that were circulated as electronic data whose authenticity was nonetheless never questioned” (Mirzoeff, 24). The authenticity of the medium was never questioned because, as Mirzoeff writes, “Clearly in an age of Web-based speculation, visual evidence is still the most convincing and powerful form, despite the widespread understanding that such images can easily be manipulated.” (Mirzoeff, 24) In a sense this could be what Morris is ultimately investigating in his film, that is not-coincidentally tag-lined, “The scandal was the coverup”. What Morris could be illustrating by posing pastoral framed pictures with those of torture, is that both are just individual pictures of either: A) An Iraqi sunset or B) a hooded brown-bodied human, unless there is context. Context gives the photo medium a narrative. Context, being the location, time, and event of when the photo was taken. With context, for the “postcard” picture, we can perceive the sun setting over an Iraqi prison where a lot of ugly torture happens, and with context we can perceive violent torturous pictures of Iraqi prisoners, who was violated by U.S. personnel for the purposes of supremacy, humor, humiliation etc. The effect of placing these individually framed photos on the same timeline explores what Morris (and consequently Mirzoeff) are trying to say, which is: we must also be skeptical of the context when dealing with the medium of photography. How sure are we that these sunsets took place over the Iraqi prison of Abu Ghraib? How sure are we that these pictures were just a few “bad eggs” that abused the system?

In a digital society, where we as the “invisible visibility of a police culture that claims there is nothing to see while still circulating pixilated documents of imperial hierarchy around the Internet,” the context to which we perceive photo information can be very skewed. Take for example this video, from the television show “The Office”, where a Myspace picture of Kelly is used as blackmail by Creed in oder to get information. The context behind the picture is seemingly innocent, from Kelly’s Myspace, however in fear of loosing her job and credibility, because her office coworkers will not know the context of her picture, forces Kelly to give up office gossip. This cover-up, if you may, creates the scandal of Creed passing out gossip files. Not to mention, "The Office," like Standard Operating Procedure is filmed in a documentary style, with the video-camera acting like a objective perspective. However in "The Office" 'mock'umentary style fashion, the camera plays with this role, and becomes subjective. Perhaps, like the “incidents” at Abu Ghraib?

Work Cited:

Carby, Hazel. A Strange and Bitter Crop: The Spectacle of Torture

Mirzoeff, Nicholas. Invisible Empire: Visual Culture, Embodied Spectacle, and Abu Ghraib

Novak, B.J. "Blackmail." The Office. CBS.

Television (Found on HULU)

The Spectacle of the Tortured Body and the Torturer

In traditional images of tortured bodies in the U.S., the focus of the image is the person or group of people being abused. In her article “A Strange and Bitter Crop: the Spectacle of Torture”, Hazel Carby talks about the spectacle, or event, that is often created surround the torturing of certain bodies in the U.S. history. Specifically, bodies of color such as the lynched African Americans and Iraqi’s in the Abu Ghraib scandal were photographed and served several purposes as a spectacle for the nation. Perhaps most importantly, Carby talks about America’s “two faces”. One face wants to portray our country and its citizens as wholesome and caring, while the other face is carrying on these torturous practices over and over again throughout history.

Along the same lines as the lynching of African Americans in the early 20th century, the Ku Klux Klan was a powerful group of white supremacists with a deep history and even a current-day presence. In the 1920’s, the KKK was allied with many members of the U.S. government. Governors and policemen in the South gave KKK members permission and special allowances to taunt, beat, and kill African Americans. Because of the legacy of African Americans being seen as “foreign” bodies, the local government found it normal to go along with these practices. As the KKK re-emerged in the 1960’s, the U.S. government had a much different view of their activities. They regarded their practices as cruelty and punished those breaking laws with their actions against African Americans. This fits how Carby describes our country’s “historical amnesia” – forgetting past importance and treatment of African Americans in building our country.

Another important aspect of the visual culture of the KKK is the construction of their identity through their Klansmen outfits. As pictured below, the Klansmen wear an oversized gown with a large hood that covers their entire face with small eye holes. This simple outfit speaks volumes about bodies, power, and spectacle. The robe is large and ambiguous enough to take away most of the shape of the body wearing it. The person underneath could be of any gender, race, or class. We know from history that this was not the case, but it is interesting to note that these people who were torturing based on appearances and hiding their own. As apparent in the picture below of the child, the KKK mentality was started early on and was passed down through generations. This is just one of the many ridiculous “traditions” within U.S. culture.

One of the most defining and identifying parts of the KKK outfit is the hood. The hood covers so much of the face that it hides any kind of emotions the member might be displaying. In class we discussed that one way of defining humanity is through the face. We regard people with a human face as humans because of the emotions that are shown using facial expressions and movements. The Klansmen suppress these emotions and cover their faces as a way of removing themselves from the act. While the pictures of the prisoners at Abu Ghraib showed them with bags over their heads to dehumanize them as a degrading technique, the KKK members dehumanize themselves and stand as an institution rather than individuals. The costume acts as a way of making the attackers seem to be un-human without a face and without a body. This lack of a body was a tactic used to make it seem like an organization larger than the sum of its parts was against anyone who is not the “ideal” white body.

A Picture- Worth a (Thousand Of Your Own) Words

This first picture is a photo of the human pyramid of torture in combination with a loving couple posing happily for the camera :(

The movie Standard Operating Procedure was an interesting visual of the scattered yet connected events that occured at Abu Ghraib. I felt like the photos displayed an array of violence and abuse that the military officials imposed on the prisoners of Abu Ghraib. There was obviously an array of terrible things that were happening to innocent people and you could tell from the photographs that were highlighted in the movie. For example there was a photograph of one of the military officialsstanding over a prisoner with a strap that symbolized a dog leash around the prisoners neck. It was obvious to me that the prisoner was being totured and ridiculed through this photo. However, what I took from the photo could be something completely different from what another audience members perception was. This is why the way the photo was presented in this movie was so interesting. Initially the photos were displayed while the accused military members gave their account of the event. At this point it was hard to imagine what went on at the prison. Further along in the movie, the director began to show segments of reinactments of the accused military peoples account of specific events that happened in and around the photos. I thought this was a way to give a specific perspective of the events in the photo. This was a combination of the director, actors, and personal accounts of the accused military person.Therefore, the way the movie displayed the photos was very objective. There was not much left for the audience members to come up with or imagine based ont he photos. It was very possible that the way the photo was reinacted could have been completely off incomparison to what actually occured.

The effects of the white fram and black background in my opinion was to force the picture to be the main focus to the audience. the photos were taken in a prison so they were pretty drabt o begin with, the white borders really made the picture pop out of the screen and the black background eliminated any other distractions that you would get in a movie where a picture is displayed.

Morris makes an interesting argument about the photos of torture in relation to the other photographs basically stating that they were staged like any other photo. People were posing and although they were comitting crimes they remained oblivious to that fact and focused ont he idea of just being in the picture. There were photos with thumbs up and military personel smiling and hugging while there was a pile of foreign bodies piled ont op of one another. This was really an interesting and disturbing site to see. The worst part was that a photo of torture was intermingled with photos of everyday likfe for the military people. Proving the context and the mindset of these accused military people, they disconnected from the crime they were committing and continued living and posing for the camera as if they were at an amusement parka nd everything was completely normal. this was rather disturbing yet im sure they had to learn to compartmentalize work and just maintaining their sanity.

www.opendemocracy.net (picture courtesy of)

Blog Prompt 4: Spectacle, Imperialism, & Visual Nationalism

By 9 pm on Thursday September 30, please post a 600-word (min) response to ONE OR MORE of the following prompts:

1. In “On Torture: Abu Ghraib,” what does Jasbir Puar argue regarding the construction of the imperial body in the context of the Abu Ghraib photos? Do you see Puar’s argument at work in Errol Morris’ Standard Operating Procedure? Do the interviews demonstrate any examples of the construction of such corporealities?

2. In "A Strange and Bitter Crop: The Spectacle of Torture," Hazel Carby argues that the photographs of torture at Abu Ghraib build on a long history of U.S. popular visual culture rendering the tortured body of color an object of national spectacle through which white national identity is secured. In what ways do you see this legacy at work in other forms of U.S. visual culture? How does such imagery articulate the ways racial, gender, and/or sexual norms of visuality circumscribe which bodies are constructed as human?

3. How does Standard Operating Procedure present various photographs (the photos of sunsets, of Rumsfeld, of U.S. soldiers, of abuse and violence)? What is the effect of the white frame and black background that appears around each photo that is shown? What argument is Morris making about the relation of the photographs of torture and the other photographs?

Photographs as Evidence, or Lackthereof

We've been talking in class lately about the status of photographs as evidence in legal and cultural arenas, and the role of visuality and visual culture in practices of state violence. I came across this article and thought you all might be interested in the connections.

"Solider 'Kill Team' in Afghanistan Photographed Victims" by Spencer Ackerman, Wired Magazine

Justice Dept Argues that Privacy Doesn't Exist in Public

I thought you all might find this article interesting given our conversations today in class and your fabulous blog posts about GPS technologies, the public/private divide, and state surveillance practices.

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/09/public-privacy/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+wired%2Findex+%28Wired%3A+Index+3+%28Top+Stories+2%29%29


Also, this is the link to the video of Hasan Elahi's appearance on the Colbert Report:

http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/167606/may-07-2008/hasan-elahi

Strict Surveillance

In today’s American society, security is at an all-time high. Hand in hand with this heightened security comes a heightened use of surveillance. Security cameras are everywhere. Bags are x-rayed and gone through at airports. Asylum seekers need to go through interviews and prove that they are fleeing life threatening circumstances. Phone lines are tapped. Cell phones have GPS – which can be used to track. These are just a few examples. The list of surveillance techniques could go on forever. Even though there is this ever present and constant eye on us, some people are not afraid to speak out about it. There are two visual artists – at least that’s what I’m going to call them – who do a tremendous job of shining a light on these surveillance practices. And by doing so, they are able to show how ridiculous or painful some of these procedures and tactics are. Hasan Elahi and Monica Enriquez-Enriquez are these two artists.

First I’m going to take a look at Monica Enriquez-Enriquez’s work. More specifically, her piece entitled “Asilo Queer.” In this piece, Enriquez examines what she had to go through in order to enter and remain in the United States. Voiced over images of a body with writing all over it, Enriquez says “I can no longer tell what my story is… because I’ve had to write many versions of myself.” Due to the fact that she came to the U.S. seeking asylum, Enriquez needed to tell her story in a way that would be acceptable to whoever was seeing/interviewing her. She needed to appeal to whatever officer was hearing her case. And depending on who it was, she had to tweak her story. Not only would she verbally have to change her story, but also the way in which she told it physically would have to change. How much fear should she show? Should she cry? Should she show no emotion at all? Enriquez needed to perform many times in many different circumstances. Because of being under constant surveillance, Enriquez not only had to constantly relive a painful experience, but she also lost some of herself… so much so that she “[doesn’t] know which self [she] perform[s]” anymore.

While Enriquez brings attention to how hurtful surveillance can be, Hasan Elahi shows how ridiculous it can be. American citizen Hasan was detained in an airport. He never found out the exact reason why, but it is assumed it was because security thought he was linked to terrorism. As a consequence, Elahi has to check in with the FBI every so often and keep them informed about his whereabouts. To show how crazy and unfair this constant tab-keeping is, Hasan decided to aggressively comply and give them way more information then they needed. Every time Hasan makes a purchase, eats a meal, uses a public restroom, or changes location he updates his piece “Tracking Transience.” This website holds images, dates, and times of the actions he performs in the previous sentence. So whenever Elahi has to check in, he can just send them the link and the officer would have to dig through and find what information (s)he really needs. By giving a flood of information, Elahi is devaluing it. And even though he has no control over the fact that he has to give the information, Elahi has control over what info is sent and what format its in.

Let’s take a look at Monica Enriquez-Enriquez and Hasan Elahi:

Notice anything about them? Well if you can’t tell by their names, you should at least be able to tell by their pictures that they are not white. So what does this have to do with surveillance? I have an inkling that if these two artists were white, they wouldn’t have had to go through such extreme circumstances. Bodies that aren’t white go through much heavier surveillance than bodies that are. The reasons behind this run deep and are confusing. But I feel it is still important to recognize that that unhappy statement is a significant and unfortunately real thing.

(Image of Enriquez courtesy of http://www.outfest.org/fusion2007/fusion_ignite_conf.html)

(Image of Elahi courtesy of http://colinloretz.com/category/research/serious-games/)

What is Ours

Hasan Elahi innovatively critiques U.S. state surveillance with the use of technological deices. After being accused of being involved in terrorist activity and being detained, Hasan was ordered to keep the FBI informed of his whereabouts. He responded fervently. Through the use of a smart phone (its camera and GPS function especially), Hasan documented every move he made and presented it to his FBI handler each week, and then each month when they were to meet. Flooding the surveillance system with thousands of documentary photographs devalued the set as a whole. To the FBI, Hasan as an individual is only visible through his possibility of involvement in terrorist activity. He produces his “body” through the photographs (which, not unintentionally, never include his physical body) which he presents. It is, in fact, a presentation of himself, although portrayed in a documentary style. His race plays a key role in his plight. There is little reason beyond race why the FBI would continue to monitor Hasan despite the fact that he has been a citizen of the United States for quite some time. In his photographs, however, there is nothing that would set him apart due to his race. To me, this is yet more evidence that race can be rendered inconsequential. His gender is represented only in the numerous pictures of urinals and I am entirely unaware of how his sexuality functions. Hasan created a lovely critique of state surveillance in choosing to “aggressively comply” and monitor himself.

Monica Enríquez-Enríquez chose to critique state surveillance through the visual medium of digital video. In Asilo Queer, Enríquez speaks specifically of how she has been created through the labels given to her. In her eyes, she has been “written all over by the way in which she entered and is allowed to stay in this country.” As a queer Latina who was granted asylum in the United States, she is labeled as Columbian; she is labeled as a resident; she is labeled as a lesbian; she is labeled; she is labeled; she is labeled—and thus an identity which state surveillance can read as legible is formed. Her sexuality is noted in the writing on her body. Her race is noted in the writing on her body. Her story—why she left—is noted in the writing on her body. Her very language is interrupted by the definitions placed upon her.

I am concerned that as technology gets smarter and smarter, we will be monitored more and more. In a blog reviewing technology, Tom Simonite points out what exactly we are buying—what technological surveillance we are supporting. While the technology itself does not automatically have links beyond personal use, it is only a matter of time for some of the pieces’ data to be sold to various companies and businesses. In fact, Rattner, the CEO of Intel has stated that "Future devices will constantly learn about you. Your habits, how you go about your life, your friends. They'll know where you're going, they'll anticipate, they'll know your likes and dislikes." What isn’t common knowledge (via Facebook, Myspace, Twitter, etc.) will surely be the states information in relatively little time.

(http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/editors/25758/)

Works Cited

tracking transience: http://trackingtransience.net/

Monica Enríquez-Enríquez's site: http://danm.ucsc.edu/~mpenriqu/home.html

http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/editors/25758/ 9/21/10

Personal Perception Through Technology

Power again comes to mind when we think of U.S. surveillance practices. Surveillance in my opinion is both necessary for the overall safety of a country; however, there is a thin line between safety and invasion of privacy. With countries constantly being in danger of war and terrorism, it is imperative that the military knows when the enemy is planning its next attack. This includes people that are spies that disguise themselves as regular civilians who in reality have loyalty to another country. Therefore, the department of homeland security and central intelligence agencies are always alert and suspicious of any unusual activity in order to protect the country and its citizens from invasion. The issue’s come into play when these powerful military or intelligence agencies falsely accuse a normal civilian of terrorist activity and invade their life without any explanation. The upsetting fact is that under the patriot act, the government can detain you without letting you know why if they suspect you are involved in terrorist activity.

            Hasan Elahi’s Tracking Transience is a prime example of a falsely accused individual who under the patriot act, despite being a citizen of the United States, has lost all of his freedom and is forced to check-in with an FBI agent consistently especially when he travels. Interestingly enough, instead of resisting authority and attempting to undermine this demand based on these false accusations, Elahi took the approach of aggressive compliance. Elahi cleverly documented everything that he did on a day to day basis. This documentation included going to the restroom and eating meals which is an obvious form of data flooding. Data flooding serves as a form of resistance for numerous reasons. Firstly, it devalues the information that is presented to the FBI by giving them an abundance of information that has no relation no terrorist activities or any suspicious activity period. Secondly, by Elahi data flooding the FBI in response to being accused of terrorism, he openly exposed what the FBI was doing to him. This served as a form of sousurveillance, where everyone that was privileged to this information (everyone in the world because it is on the internet), could monitor the activities of the FBI. Therefore, Elahi was making his situation extremely public, which in turn served as a safety net of exposure. This also served as a way for Elahi to show that he has a choice in how his information is obtained. He found a way to exercise his power even as a clear subordinate. This goes back to the ideas that Foucault expressed about top-down power, and how even with the government, an institution that has supposed total control over the constituents of a country, couldn’t stop Elahi from his power to undermine them.

Elahi in particular, uses a plethora of technological mediums to comment on how bodies are produced through visual culture. The main source that Elahi used to prove how his body can be shown through visual culture was through a collage of pictures and GPS tracking that prove where he is and what he is doing during every minute in his life. He used the internet to put his body on display with these photos that create a visual showing everyone who visits his site. Other sources that Elahi utilized were talk shows, and interviews which gave him another audience that may not have access to the internet so they could hear his story and be aware of his situation. Elahi used the media and the internet to his advantage to ridicule the surveillance that he was under by the FBI.

It is obvious in Elahi’s case, how race and ethnicity played a part in him being targeted as a terrorist. He traveled frequently and looked like he was of Islamic decent, and because of his visual body, he was assumed to be a terrorist by the FBI. This is an example of how our visual bodies can negatively affect our lives inviting in discrimination.

http://sk.aphelis.net/post/99500615/fernando-vincente-painting-anatomias-serie

The Kissing Point

Elahi and Enríquez-Enríquez use various “data bodies” to portray various arguments on U.S. surveillance. Felix Stalder, quoted in Puar’s “Data Bodies,” refers to those data bodies both as a “shadow” and as preceding the user “as an ‘informational doppelganger,’” meaning that they are a data representation of one’s self. Elahi creates for himself a data body in Tracking Transience that both follows and goes against the rules. He made the website to “surveil himself” in response to detainment by the FBI in 2002, and facing the accusation of being a terrorist (Colbert Report).

Elahi’s website follows the “rules” because the FBI requested that he “check in” after being released. Tracking Transience follows every move that he makes, food that he eats, and toilet that he uses. Some might say that he goes above and beyond the request to check in. The way I see it, though, is Elahi’s quiet revolt.

While I can see his location day-by-day, what he had for lunch, or what airline he flew, I cannot see his face, nor anyone else’s. The somewhat obvious reason for a “possible terrorist” to check in is to ensure that he is not performing any terrorist activities. That would include a great need for the “who” of the situation. In this way, Elahi goes against the biopolitics. He makes the information public, taking away the secrecy and, therefore, the value of the information for the FBI.

Elahi’s photographs surpass the individual. A person is shown in none of them, and yet, the viewer can see, given simple cues (e.g. the language on a sign, GPS coordinates, an airline symbol, etc.) where he is and what he is doing. He shows that such information can be expressed without flesh and blood, making race, sex, ethnicity, and sexuality unimportant information.

Observe the following photograph:

(Scotto)

What did you see? From this picture, a person can see that I ate dinner at home tonight. They can see that I opted for water instead of something else, that I did not take the time to cook, and that I opted for an Italian dish. You can also see that I microwaved my dinner right before beginning this blog. A better question, though, is what CAN’T you see? Do you even know that this was my dinner, or that I took this picture? Was it my house, or a friend’s? There is no obvious way to tell. I remain faceless, raceless, genderless; I am a data body in its most complete sense, as I portray no body at all, only information. There are, however, different forms to the data body. Monica Enríquez-Enríquez gives a very different portrayal of such.

In her videos Asilo Queer and Objetos de Memoria, Enríquez-Enríquez taps into the networks of surveillance in a three-dimensional manner, and as Puar points out, it is “viciously intimate” (Puar, 4). In Asilo Queer, the viewer is put in the position of watching the fluid movements of a body, while listening to its story in a Spanglish narrative. I felt uncomfortable during this video when there were things I could not understand. It felt as if I was eavesdropping on a private conversation, and the feeling got only worse when I viewed Objetos de Memoria. I felt as Puar explains, that “the discontinuity is a deliberate rupturing, not simply a missing or missed connection, but an intimate, brutal almost-but-no kind of taunting” (Puar, 4). I can see the image, I can read the scripts, but I cannot necessarily know what the message is. In this way, Enríquez-Enríquez beats the biopolitical system, at least in the U.S. Using interviews and creative filming, she creates a data body for lesbian Latina women, which is expressed outside of the immediate understanding of the viewer. In this way, she and her subjects stay outside surveillance, the same way that Elahi does with Tracking Transience.

Works Cited

Colbert, Stephen. "Hasan Elahi." The Colbert Report. Comedy Partners. 2010. http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/167606/may-07- 2008/hasan- elahi

Elahi, Hasan. Tracking Transience. www.trackingtransience.com

Enríquez-Enríquez, Monica. Asilo Queer.http://danm.ucsc.edu/~mpenriqu/home.html

Enríquez-Enríquez, Monica. Objetos de Memoria. http://danm.ucsc.edu/~mpenriqu/home.html

Puar, Jasbir. "Data Bodies." Terrorist Assemblages: Homonationalism in Queer Times. Durham: Duke University Press. 2007.

Digital Bodies and State Surveillance

Monica Enríquez-Enríquez's video “Asilo Queer” addresses the problem of carrying traumatic experiences with you, like words on your skin. For the woman talking in the video, this experience was attempting to gain asylum in the United States. The U.S. requires refugees to write their stories se

veral times to verify their validity. The image shown during the video is a female body with phrases, both in Spanish and English, to show the struggle between these two worlds within one person or body. Many of the refugees have gone through terrifying things, and Monica critiques this practice because of the damaging and lasting effects it can have on those who just want to get away from it. Her other video, “Objetos de Memoria”, is the voice of woman talking about the boots that her partner in Mexico purchased for her. The woman no longer wears the boots because she wants to preserve them as a memory of her partner. In Mexico, the woman was persecuted because of her relationship with another woman, but being here in the U.S., despite getting away from the persecution, has separated her from the one she loves. In both of these examples, Monica points to what we discussed as asylum politics in class. The U.S. constructs itself as a big safety-ship for all those being harmed in other countries. However, the practices and politics of asylum law can be equally terrifying and traumatic.

Hasan Elahi created his website “Tracking Transience” as a backlash against the U.S. government. Afte

r being detained for being a security risk, government officials asked Elahi to check in with them in order to track his whereabouts. Elahi created his website as a 24/7 alibi that reports his every move so that the government, as well as anyone else who goes to the site, can know his exact location at any time. He is using GPS and internet technologies to show where his body is at all times.

In his piece, Elahi is showing the absurdness of what U.S. officials want to do to those who do not “fit the mold” of the good American citizen. Those who do not fit the mold of a socially accepted race, gender, sexuality, or citizenship are targeted as trying to harm the country in some way. In our visual culture, those who look different, despite maybe being ordinary on the inside, are targeted and watched over to be sure that they are not doing anything outside of the norm.

After viewing the website, I did a quick search on Elahi to try and make sense

of it. I was quite surprised by the images I found of him. While he is Middle Eastern and has typical features, he bleaches his hair blonde. I could tell based on the pictures that he is not a natural blonde because of the varying dark root length. My brain was quite overwhelmed with the possible implications and interpretations of his hair color choice. The U.S. government has been criticized for possibly using racial profiling in their detaining practices. There are an unequal number of people from the Middle Eastern race who are detained as being a security threat. This made me wonder if Elahi dyes his hair in order to show hi

mself as being a more stereotypical “American” body. I suppose that it would be easier to interpret if we knew what his hair color was when he was originally detained, but I thought the image was an important part of the discussion about bodies and surveillance.

'image courtesy of http://www.flickr.com/photos/penamericancenter/2490251188/

tracking transience: http://trackingtransience.net/

Monica Enríquez-Enríquez's site: http://danm.ucsc.edu/~mpenriqu/home.html

Data Bodies, and the Militarized Civilian's Need to be Patriotic

In an era (especially after September 11^th) of seemingly constant surveillance attributed to state of the art technology in the hands of power, and enforced laws, such as The Patriot Act, Jasbir Puar critiques the way our bodies are transformed into transcribed sets of data, used by a power source, to better calculate our every move in her essay, “Data Bodies.” In her work, Puar draws attention to the subject of how a body becomes data-ed by referencing Eugene Thacker in saying, “Thacker writes that biopolitics both ‘universalizes and individualizes the population’… ‘in biopolictics, the body is a database, and informatics is the search engine’”(160). She goes onto explain that what this means is, “In statistical terms, race and sex are experienced as a series of transactional informational flows captured or happened upon at chance moments that perceive and render bodies transparent or opaque, secure or insecure, risky or at risk, risk-enabled or risk-disabled, the living or the living dead.” In saying this, Puar argues that bodies become a “statistical population,” in which U.S. state surveillance practices can base judgment in relation to pre-set data ideas. We can relate this theory to “racial profiling” in airports, etc. However, Puar’s real argument relies on how, “self-regulation becomes less an internalization of norms and more about constant monitoring of oneself and others, watching waiting, listening, ordering, positioning, calculating. One sees emerging through these practices not necessarily the crafting of the individual subject cohered through acquiescence to or internalization of norms but assemblages of “militarized bodies” (156). What this means, as Puar continues to argue, is that “militarized bodies” arise beyond what we deem normalized military (i.e. the actual military) to the, “everyday activities” of civilian bodies. In saying this, Puar argues that civilian bodies become data bodies by “voluntary practices” of surveying in order to control. In other words, civilians choose to act in certain ways to obtain their own control, because they believe it to be their, “patriotic mandate” (156). Thus, “militarized bodies” are created in "patriotic" civilians, and surveillance is not just in the power of the U.S. government, but also in it’s population.

In Hasan Elahi's “Tracking Transience,” a critique of specific U.S. state surveillance practices, in particular those that incarcerated him for “alleged terrorist activity” that was probably be based on racial profiling, relate to Puar’s militarized civilian body, in which she classifies as, “the compliant citizen.” “The compliant citizen” encompasses, “airport security measures, biometric technologies… video surveillance…” (157) After Elahi was arrested for alleged terrorist activity, he was forced to occasionally “check in” with FBI authorities on his whereabouts, and thus reacted in a way in which he deemed, “aggressive compliance.” In “Tracking Transience,” Elahi documents his every move, and credit card purchase by using his cell phone, and GPS. Every move meaning: pictures of food, toilets, and a digital map of his current whereabout. In these digital mediums he almost mocks the way U.S. surveillance practices try to keep tabs on questionable “data bodies” that are (in this case) based on race.

In a similar notion, Monica Enríquez-Enríquez's uses the medium of digital video, and written text to critique U.S. state surveillance in her film, “Asilo Queer.” In the film we see a body covered in words (both English and Spanish), and we hear a narrator critique how specific U.S. state surveillance practices deal with the “data bodies” of immigrants. The narrator says, “I have been written all over in particular by the way in which I enter and I am able to stay in this country. I can no longer tell what my story is… because I’ve had to write many versions of myself…I am a compilation of selves.” The narrator also claims to have, “no language” in which she can express herself. We visually see the confusion written on her “data body,” and we physically hear the disorientation an immigrant may feel as he or she enters a country filled with “militarized civilians” who as Puar would call, “informant-citizen cum vigilant spies” may data an immigrant body into being a suspicious subject, or illegal immigrant (157). The struggle Enríquez-Enríquez displays shows the complexity of power in a country where even the citizens are of a conspicuous and bias power.

The narrative surrounding a “patriotic citizen” in the U.S. creates militarized citizens whom feel obligated to act in a voluntary need for protection of themselves and the state. This video clip from an episode of the television show, “The Office,” deploys and plays with the idea of militarized citizens. In this case we have the character Dwight bringing in an audio surveillance device, in order to be a “compliant citizen”, under his bosses wishes. Jim (and other characters), react in a similar way that Elahi did with, “aggressive compliance.” This sort of mocking is of course different than Elahi’s, however it plays with the same principles of power relationships, and explores how in a twist of who’s being surveyed may be comical. Also, note the patriotic Uncle Sam figure at the beginning.

Work Cited:

Jasbir Puar. Terrorist Assemblages: Homonationalism in Queer Times. Durham: Duke University Press, 2007

“The Office” clip found on Spike.com