[cross-posted at femmalia.wordpress.com]
Two weeks after the much-publicized death of Iranian protester, Neda — whose final moments were famously captured by a cell phone camera and distributed the world over — a couple dozen performers put together a music video tribute slash “non-violent resistance” anthem filmed (appropriately?) with nothing but a cell phone camera. Described by CNN as “a call to action against human rights violations by the Iranian government against Iranians,” the video’s creators/stars rap and harmonize about non-violence, their fuzzy, pixelated faces crooning between clips of the now historic footage of Neda’s death.
The graphic clips excerpted by the creators of the video for the the purpose of spreading their message of solidarity and pacifism have generated a cacophony of international outrage, sympathy, outright disbelief, and controversy since their initial circulation a few weeks ago. While the footage has galvanized protesters in Iran, creating for them a martyr to rally around as they strive for real, lasting change, it has also prompted enthusiastic Americans to wear green and tweet about revolution in what has already been described by numerous commentators as a superficial and ineffectual display of “solidarity.” The “United for Neda” video, as well-intentioned and misguided as any green-clad American, seems to fall into the latter category. Like Americans who continually replay the Neda footage in order to sustain a dimming sense of shock, outrage, and civic duty while imagining a connection to a less complacent world, the music video appropriates the controversial images of Neda with the aim of fostering activism through the propagation of sensational violence.
Plenty has been written on the subject already. Virtually every reporter covering current events in Iran has addressed the issue of Neda’s death in some way or other — sometimes dramatically (in the case of CNN, who broke the story) and sometimes tenderly (in the case of Roger Cohen, who never fails to convey a sense of humanity and compassion in his thoughtful articulations of the events unfolding in Iran). Some have gone so far as to suggest that the Neda video was a hoax based one source’s “obvious rhetorical flourish” when recounting the event, while others have criticized our macabre fascination with the woman’s death (as evidenced by the video’s propagation).
Perhaps the most interesting bit of commentary I’ve read on the subject, however, is a piece on a personal blog which suggests that Americans’ sense of humanitarian duty is only activated by their vociferous consumption of violence against people of color:
On blog threads, commenters are thanking bloggers for posting the video of Neda’s death [...]
I understand these readers’ sentiments, but why? Why must we see an Iranian woman die on a city street in order to understand the gravity of the country’s political upheaval? Why must we see brown bodies bloated and floating to give a damn about the tsunami in Myanmar or the hurricane in New Orleans? Why did we have to see Oscar Grant killed in cold blood by police on a BART platform to talk about racism and the justice system? Why did it take the mangled body of 14-year-old Emmitt Till to give America an inkling of the tyranny and danger that black folks faced in the South every day?
I think Americans are fetishizing video of Neda Soltani’s death in a way they would not if she were a young, blonde, American college student shot down on an American street. We do not need to see the lifeless bodies of those women in order to care for them. But people like Neda owe access to their deaths so Americans can access their own humanity.
While I take issue with the author’s easy assertion that the phenomenon described above is based entirely on racial dynamics, there’s value in her overall argument. I have often wondered about photojournalists’ depictions of the third world which often disproportionately emphasize the negative — particularly as compared to depictions of the first world. I’ve also been troubled by our apparent preference for images of the third world that seem to affirm our perceptions of its brutal nature. Take a look at Pulitzer Prize winners over the last decade, for example…it’s a scrapbook of third world suffering and devastation: Kevin Carter’s controversial photo of a Sudanese baby being stalked by a vulture, Stephanie Walsh’s photo series depicting a Kenyan woman’s circumcision, Carolyn Cole’s images of the effects of the Liberian civil war, Adrees Latif’s photograph of a fatally wounded man lying in a street in Myanmar, and the list goes on. Patrick Farrell, this year’s Pulitzer Prize winner for “Breaking News Photography” similarly depicts “provocative, impeccably composed images of despair after Hurricane Ike and other lethal storms caused a humanitarian disaster in Haiti.”
What leads me to argue that this is not simply a race issue, however, is our culture’s reverence for photos like those of Damon Winter — also a Pulitzer Prize winning photographer — which consist of triumphant, inspiring images of Barack Obama campaigning during the presidential primary. We love heroic depictions of America(ns), regardless of skin color — emphasis on the “heroic,” because that is how we love to see ourselves, especially in relation to the rest of world.
That’s the issue at hand, really. We craft our own national and cultural identity in opposition the that of the rest of the world; the more devastating and woeful they are, the bigger and brighter we are by comparison.
The Neda video affirms this dichotomy of the world for us, depicting “them” as either brutish or helpless while reifying our sense of superior self and, in so doing, activating our sense of entitlement as the the third world’s savior. And, while indulging a savior complex is never a productive starting point for activism, at least the intention is noble however misguided the articulation of that intention proves to be in the long run….
Changing our facebook profile pictures to the color green and disseminating a video of a dying woman within circles that have absolutely no stake in the conflict that led to her death aren’t the most fruitful (or respectful) methods of supporting a cause. And while photojournalist depictions of third world devastation may expose us to issues that desperately need international support and attention, one hopes that we are evolved enough to support humanitarian (and other) causes without having to get off on images that would be considered no less than exploitative and cruel if they depicted the last moments of our own loved ones’ lives.
The kind of “activism” that is motivated by a short-term visceral response is superficial and similarly fleeting — and the artists responsible for creating the “United for Neda” video ought to make themselves aware of that fact. They, like us, should support a cause because, intellectually, we understand the ethical implications of our action and inaction, and have cultivated a sense of civic duty based on our sense of civic justice….and not because we had an emotional reaction to a moment of violence suspended in time.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: American "Activism": On the Neda Video, and Other Images of the Brutal Third World.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/14922
Okay. I'm kind of tired of these tragic events being framed in the way you are framing them. Your manner of addressing these issues seems every bit as bad and problematic as the way you're alleging that others are framing these same situations.
Neda is not a "brown body". Tsunami victims are not "brown bodies" Caring and compassion are not "fetishizing". Don't confuse this! These are real human beings, and people respond accordingly. Also, do you really think that Oscar Grant was killed "in cold blood"? I don't think so, and I don't think it's that simple.
Portraying these tragic events in the manner in which you and so many others are framing it is only going to serve to drive a wedge in as opposed to building a bridge or bringing people together. Please don't do this! Please?
Who views America as the third world's "savior"? I don't even know anyone who does. I just think that real and caring people are trying to help, through charity, policy, money, reporting, and leadership. It would be nice if we could help, and one of the ways we help is through leading by example. Whether you like it or not, America is exemplary. America and Americans are actively pursuing our own disparities and injustices, while we pursue disparities and injustices that exist in the rest of the world. In which of these countries does a voice like Feministing freely exist?
I guess what I'm wondering is how your post serves to do anything but divide people and promote a sort of dishonesty that does more damage in an already damaged world. I know where you're coming from. I just don't know why you frame this in such a divisive and misleading manner.
Thanks for you comment. I get the feeling, though, that you didn't read my piece very closely; had you done so, you'd see that I also disagree with referring to Neda as a "brown body" and that a large part of my argument is built around my assertion that this is not an issue of race. Please don't mistake the opinions of the author whom I quote with my own opinions, as she and I clearly disagree on many things.
Secondly: please consider that, while "no one [you] know" regards the U.S. as the "world's savior," that doesn't preclude others from viewing it that way, particularly those in many other countries. In fact, the notion that Americans regard the rest of the world with a rather paternalistic attitude (especially in terms of humanitarian aid) is something that transnational and third world feminists the world over address on a regular basis. Narayan and Mohanty are a few very distinguished transnational feminist scholars that come to mind immediately. Perhaps you might do some research about what the educated women of the rest of world think about these issues before deciding that your personal experience is normative and thereby the lens through which you will evaluate all others (in sociology, we call that "ethnocentric").
Moreover, you might want to reconsider your suggestion that no one other country besides ours is progressive or free enough to have a website like Feministing. Such a statement implies that you have not traveled very far, have met few feminists from around the world, and are not very well read on third world social movements and activism. I would expect such a passionate advocate of Feministing to be a lot less narrow-minded than that.
Finally, I do not argue that the United States (like many other places) is not exemplary in a number of ways, nor do I assert that Americans are NOT taking action in ways that positively impact the lives of people globally. Many certainly are. What I am saying is that those people who are most effective at creating change and supporting others are those who are committed to a cause because they have "cultivated a sense of civic duty based on our sense of civic justice" -- and not because they repeatedly watched a video of a woman dying.
I sincerely hope you will familiarize yourself with some of the ideas I've mentioned and, in particular, the feminist scholars I described. I think, then, you and I could have a very productive conversation about a topic that we obviously both feel very passionately about.
The countries I was referring to were the third world countries that were being addressed. Not every country in the world. Show me the feministing site in Iran, and I'll show you a site that is not effective whatsoever. Please.
F.Y.I. I'm well read, well traveled, and well informed. I have to say, it doesn't help your argument when you make assumptions about me when you have no idea what you're talking about and to whom you are talking.
Courtship Dating,
I realize now that paragraphs 5-7 should have been block-quoted, as those paragraphs are actually a quote from another blog that I am critiquing. I realize this is confusing and makes it seem as though some ideas with which I am disagreeing are actually my own.
I have written to tech support to correct the problem.
I encourage you to re-read the piece with that information in mind.
described by numerous commentators as a superficial and ineffectual display of “solidarity.” The “United for Neda” video, as well-intentioned and misguided as any green-clad American, seems to fall into the latter category.
I agree with you that it would be best if Americans could connect to the rest of the world in a much less sensational way, but I don't think that will happen with our culture that way it is and is progressing. Images and video are very valuable in creating the political will needed to mobilize large amounts of support. When I think about this, I think about Stalin's quote about 1 death being a tragedy and 1 million being a statistic. What these images and videos do is capture that single tragedy amidst the statistics. They are important because it gives people something to connect to. You can argue about what this says about the moral sensibilities of the American people, but I think it is effective in raising awareness.
About the green bands: I would also say this is a good method of raising awareness. It forcibly reminds people who are going about their daily business of events happening outside of their narrow life experiences. Someone appearing on a talk show with a green armband doesn't even need to say anything in order for people to be reminded of what is happening on the other side of the world. This seems very effectual to me. You can't force people to provide support but you can appeal to their better natures and keep it in their consciousness. Iran is far away and it is easy to let it slip through the cracks.
I have often wondered about photojournalists’ depictions of the third world which often disproportionately emphasize the negative
I would say because of the reasons mentioned above. They tell the story of people who have no voice in the first world. A truck driver in Kansas can see the common humanity of a person starving in Africa because of those photojournalists. Something which probably wouldn't have occured otherwise. Maybe through this people can understand the world differently and understand that suffering and injustice is terrible no matter where it occurs.
That’s the issue at hand, really. We craft our own national and cultural identity in opposition the that of the rest of the world; the more devastating and woeful they are, the bigger and brighter we are by comparison.
in so doing, activating our sense of entitlement as the the third world’s savior
I agree with this although I would say this is actually a good thing, not a bad one. We are the most powerful country in the world and we acknowledge it. And with the knowledge comes the urge to sacrifice for the benefit of others who aren't as fortunate. I don't see anything wrong with this and I don't think a starving child receiving their humanitantian ration would begrudge the citizens of the US for exercising our "entitlement" as the saviour of the 3rd world. I would say a people who desire to consider themselves heroes is more productive than a country indifferent to suffering.
In fact, the notion that Americans regard the rest of the world with a rather paternalistic attitude (especially in terms of humanitarian aid) is something that transnational and third world feminists the world over address on a regular basis.
I think there is a distinction between humanitarian aid and imposing our culture and way of life on others. Humanitarian aid is not paternalistic, it makes no judgment about the recipient except that they are in need (not to mention the fact the aid is offered not imposed).
What I am saying is that those people who are most effective at creating change and supporting others are those who are committed to a cause because they have "cultivated a sense of civic duty based on our sense of civic justice"
There are probably very few people who fit this description and I'm not going to start talking about privilege but imagine you haven't gone to college, you have 3 kids and are a single parent. You work 9+ hours a day, 6 days a week. You haven't moved out of the city you grew up in, you have never left the state (let alone the country). What I'm trying to say is that in order to get people to care about something which doesn't truly directly impact their life amidst all their other problems, you have to connect them to the issue in a way which just doesn't always happen through a "cultivated a sense of civic duty based on our sense of civic justice"
The countries I was referring to were the third world countries that were being addressed. Not every country in the world. Show me the feministing site in Iran, and I'll show you a site that is not effective whatsoever. Please.
F.Y.I. I'm well read, well traveled, and well informed. I have to say, it doesn't help your argument when you make assumptions about me when you have no idea what you're talking about and to whom you are talking.
CS: Thank you for your thoughts!
Courtship Dating: I see you are not interested in expanding your worldview and, frankly are beyond the "help" of my argument. Thanks for your thoughts.