Times have changed, power has shifted hands.
In “Spectatorship, Power, and Knowledge,” Cartwright and Sturken discuss the idea of spectatorship and the gaze, and describe the relationships of power involved. Traditionally, male spectators hold power over the female images they gaze at. Cartwright and Sturken do mention that the concept of the gaze has changed greatly, as women are stepping behind the camera and taking on positions of power. They also mention the different ways subjects can confront or avoid the gaze to take some of the power away from the spectator. What the authors did not bring up, however, is that maybe sometimes the relationship of power between spectator and subject isn’t what it appears to be. Many times, today’s relationships of power between the spectator and subject does not fit the traditional model at all.
Traditionally, it is thought that it is the male spectator gazing at the female subject that holds the power, or more recently the female spectator gazing at the male subject. Neither of these formulas takes into account the possibility that it is the subject, not the spectator, that really has control in the relationship. Think about it. Who is really the dominant one in this relationship: the viewers that flock to gaze at various star subjects, or the celebrity subjects that quite literally command our attention? I think it is them in control, not us. They command our attention and direct our gaze…we are simply passive viewers anxiously awaiting what ever image or video they churn out. While it may appear that the man is in a dominant position when he is staring at a picture of Paris Hilton, it is really quite the opposite. She is the one that has made the man stop in his step to look at whatever poster or ad campaign she is part of now. He had to buy the magazine or find the picture. All she had to do was sit there; and she is the one getting paid.
The subjects have turned the table on spectators to a large degree. Just think about all the crap we watch on TV. Who is really in the submissive role in that relationship; the no-talent B-lister appearing on some new reality show, or the viewer that puts time aside every night to watch devotedly? While viewers do get to choose what they watch, and may feel like they have the upper hand on the cast they watch fighting on TV, many times those actors or nobodies are laughing all the way to the bank. Sure, they may be getting humiliated on national TV, and viewers may feel superior as they get to peek in on these people’s lives, but look a bit closer at what is really going on. Viewers are taking time out of their lives to watch what Nancy Nobody or Loser Larry will do next. The subjects are humiliating the viewers by constantly drawing their gaze with things not really worth a modicum of their attention. Viewers of reality TV shows spend time gazing at what these subjects are doing instead of being invested in their own lives.
This change in the dynamic of power between spectator and subject has also been accompanied by a change in who spectators and subjects are. Traditionally, the government and people of authority have been spectators, while we citizens are the subjects being gazed at. This relationship of power was discussed in Michel Foucault’s “Panopticon,” which described the effective the omnipresent gaze of authorities in power is in disciplining populations and keeping people in line. This goes for prisons, hospitals, and even schools. We are subjects in this Panopticism every day. Just look at the signs in many of our classrooms; “Class may be videotaped.” Is it or isn’t it? We have no idea if anybody is actually really watching or filming the class, yet many times this sign alone is enough to keep students from cheating or vandalizing the classroom.
The flow of power in this Panopticism has been somewhat reversed recently with as the traditional occupants who occupy the roles of spectator and subject have changed. Technology has made us all spectators. As digital camcorders have become more affordable, we have all become directors. More importantly, with the advent of the video phone, we can all be spectators recording our subjects at any given time. And these subjects aren’t just our fellow students or citizens; they are people in positions of authority as well. Now everybody has to tiptoe around, not knowing if they are on or off camera. Video phones have enabled us to hold those in power in check in the same way they do to us: by having them feel that there is always the possibility that we may be looking. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AyvrqcxNIFs
It was because of the video phone that we know what happened during Saddam Hussein’s botched hanging. This same technology has been responsible for a plethora of evidence in police brutality cases, and more locally, the UCLA taser case. Slowly, authorities are realizing that they are going to have to be more careful in upholding their responsibilities and acting appropriately because there is always the chance that somebody is watching, waiting to capture any sort of travesty on their video phone to quickly be posted on YouTube. They now must realize that citizens are looking back. Panopticism isn’t just one way any more. It flows both ways ast hose that are spectators and those that are subjects have changed.
In “Spectatorship, Power, and Knowledge,” Cartwright and Sturken discuss the idea of spectatorship and the gaze, and describe the relationships of power involved. Traditionally, male spectators hold power over the female images they gaze at. Cartwright and Sturken do mention that the concept of the gaze has changed greatly, as women are stepping behind the camera and taking on positions of power. They also mention the different ways subjects can confront or avoid the gaze to take some of the power away from the spectator. What the authors did not bring up, however, is that maybe sometimes the relationship of power between spectator and subject isn’t what it appears to be. Many times, today’s relationships of power between the spectator and subject does not fit the traditional model at all.
Traditionally, it is thought that it is the male spectator gazing at the female subject that holds the power, or more recently the female spectator gazing at the male subject. Neither of these formulas takes into account the possibility that it is the subject, not the spectator, that really has control in the relationship. Think about it. Who is really the dominant one in this relationship: the viewers that flock to gaze at various star subjects, or the celebrity subjects that quite literally command our attention? I think it is them in control, not us. They command our attention and direct our gaze…we are simply passive viewers anxiously awaiting what ever image or video they churn out. While it may appear that the man is in a dominant position when he is staring at a picture of Paris Hilton, it is really quite the opposite. She is the one that has made the man stop in his step to look at whatever poster or ad campaign she is part of now. He had to buy the magazine or find the picture. All she had to do was sit there; and she is the one getting paid.
The subjects have turned the table on spectators to a large degree. Just think about all the crap we watch on TV. Who is really in the submissive role in that relationship; the no-talent B-lister appearing on some new reality show, or the viewer that puts time aside every night to watch devotedly? While viewers do get to choose what they watch, and may feel like they have the upper hand on the cast they watch fighting on TV, many times those actors or nobodies are laughing all the way to the bank. Sure, they may be getting humiliated on national TV, and viewers may feel superior as they get to peek in on these people’s lives, but look a bit closer at what is really going on. Viewers are taking time out of their lives to watch what Nancy Nobody or Loser Larry will do next. The subjects are humiliating the viewers by constantly drawing their gaze with things not really worth a modicum of their attention. Viewers of reality TV shows spend time gazing at what these subjects are doing instead of being invested in their own lives.This change in the dynamic of power between spectator and subject has also been accompanied by a change in who spectators and subjects are. Traditionally, the government and people of authority have been spectators, while we citizens are the subjects being gazed at. This relationship of power was discussed in Michel Foucault’s “Panopticon,” which described the effective the omnipresent gaze of authorities in power is in disciplining populations and keeping people in line. This goes for prisons, hospitals, and even schools. We are subjects in this Panopticism every day. Just look at the signs in many of our classrooms; “Class may be videotaped.” Is it or isn’t it? We have no idea if anybody is actually really watching or filming the class, yet many times this sign alone is enough to keep students from cheating or vandalizing the classroom.
The flow of power in this Panopticism has been somewhat reversed recently with as the traditional occupants who occupy the roles of spectator and subject have changed. Technology has made us all spectators. As digital camcorders have become more affordable, we have all become directors. More importantly, with the advent of the video phone, we can all be spectators recording our subjects at any given time. And these subjects aren’t just our fellow students or citizens; they are people in positions of authority as well. Now everybody has to tiptoe around, not knowing if they are on or off camera. Video phones have enabled us to hold those in power in check in the same way they do to us: by having them feel that there is always the possibility that we may be looking. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AyvrqcxNIFs
It was because of the video phone that we know what happened during Saddam Hussein’s botched hanging. This same technology has been responsible for a plethora of evidence in police brutality cases, and more locally, the UCLA taser case. Slowly, authorities are realizing that they are going to have to be more careful in upholding their responsibilities and acting appropriately because there is always the chance that somebody is watching, waiting to capture any sort of travesty on their video phone to quickly be posted on YouTube. They now must realize that citizens are looking back. Panopticism isn’t just one way any more. It flows both ways ast hose that are spectators and those that are subjects have changed.
1 comment:
Ahhh, get outta my brain! This is exactly what I was going to blog about (point by point), so needless to say, I'm in total agreement. Do I sense another blog exemplar? Good work, dude.
Post a Comment