Shiv,
> > The faces of several "trophy kill" victims in Afghanistan
> > were presented on DemocracyNow.org with their faces blurred.
> >
> > Here's same treatment applied to another well-known war image:
> >
> > http://www.experiments.com/exp-1.html
> >
> > As always, let me know what you think.
>
> One thing I always found curious when I first went to live in the UK was
> "cultural sensitivities" that demanded that the face of a dead person should
> be covered. In India faces of dead people are left open, by and large.
I think there are several forces at work. There is indeed
a cultural denial about the reality of death in the West.
Part of this may be attributable to the sequestration of
dying relatives in old age homes, and the celebration of
youth culture in mass media advertising. Another factor
may be the shallowness of our consumer culture. It makes
the contemplation of the everything just ending without
ever having had meant very much rather painful. In this way,
hyper consumerism and prepackaged "meaning injections"
from organized religion really do have a common origin.
Inner peace isn't the central focus of western culture;
desire is.
I want
I need
I fear
If only
Maybe, someday
More, more, more
Look out for number one baby
Today
Me, I, my
Stare into the face of death? Um... no.
A pity.
This is a both a gross caricature and a sweeping generalization,
but I think there's more than just a seed of truth in it.
While Protestants usually go for closed caskets, Catholics go for
open (unless the person is really mangled beyond all recognition).
Sometimes, people people touch the face or hands of the deceased.
I regard this as a good thing. Death is hard to comprehend, so
anything that makes it less abstract is a helpful aid to accepting
its reality.
Aside: I'm not a religious person myself.
> Photographs of maimed corpses are often shown unedited in Indian media while
> similar photographs would appear with a warning or with some masking in the
> media in the west. I don't know whether this is a cultural difference where
> it
> is considered OK to look at such stuff in India, or whether it is a process
> of
> evolution where western societies that used to allow graphic images in the
> past have now changed to cater to the sensitivities of those who are shocked
> by such images. The implication being that in India such sensitivites are
> currently ignored.
A more cynical interpretation is that by removing the face of
the victim, you remove some of the passion from those who would
otherwise voice strenuous, heart-felt objections to the war.
Could you see a peace rally inspired by the blurred image?
I sure can't.
So, is it a conspiracy of corporate controlled mass media,
plain old marketing to your audience, or just thoughtless
habit of our culture?
Hard to tell.
Probably a bit of everything.
> I am currently reading a gripping book about the psychology of men at war
> called "Acts of War" by Richard Holmes. For me it is a gold mine of
> information. The author writes of coping mecahnisms that soldiers use to come
> to grips with the randomness of death in war. One such coping mechanism is
> what appears like "disrespect" for the dead. The jocular "familarity" with a
> corpse - like taking a photograph for the family album is one way of coping
> with the idea that the corpse could be you next.
Thanks for the book reference.
> One final possibility about uncensored faces is the legal angle. For example
> I
> believe the relatives of two Pakistanis killed by a US operative in Pakistan
> (Raymond Davis) have apparently been allowed to emigrate to the US. If
> tomorrow they were to become citizens - they would well become Americanized
> enough to sue a media outlet that shows the faces of their dead realtives for
> "distress caused"
Remember back in the Bush days how the press wasn't even supposed
to show the caskets? If you were to go the cynical route,
it's not hard to observe that the only way the US population
can stomach these wars is if they remain totally abstract.
o Someone else pays for them;
for now China, later our kids
o Someone else dies for them;
no draft, just volunteers from poor communities & mercenaries
o No empathy-producing agonized faces
just embedded reporters and video-game like graphics,
and the blurred faces of civilians caught in the crossfire
(for which our commander in chief has already apologized).
I'm not saying this is the only motivation for such reporting.
Marketing to your audience probably explains most of it.
However, it is fruitful to look at both intention and effect,
and consider each on their own terms. :)
> In tis case I think the "trophy kill" expose ws made by Rolling Stone. I
> wonder if theer are legal implications for the use of those images by other
> media?
A great question.
I strongly suspect (and hope) the publishers are protected
by our 1st Amendment, but I dunno.
- Jon
