|
>
> |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="SecondEssay" |
|---|
Why do Images of Violence Fail to Move the Needle In The Fight For Racial Justice
-- By GabrielleStanfield - 23 Apr 2022
Visualizing Injustice
The field of art and the law though seemingly unrelated have emerged as areas of significant overlap in the context of social justice and racial equality. Specifically, in the past few years, photographs and videos are considered to have been a defining factor, generating the necessary momentum in the present-day movement for a reckoning around racism. It is important to distinguish these images from art. Where art is something that we typically associate with beauty and care, the images in question here do not provide any such considerations. The skillset, however, of visual analysis as applied to art is relevant. A photograph, in the same way as a painting, presents a composition constructed of fundamental elements of color, line, and shape. Moreover, we analyze visual material in the context of the background of the creator, the subject of the piece, and the social or historical frame. The experience of visual analysis is thought-provoking and personal, it allows each viewer to engage with an image in a deeply individualized manner.
The repeated imagery of racial violence in recent years, though painful, has created what some view as an opportunity for change by illuminating the extent of systemic injustice and affirming the distinct barriers faced by Black Americans. The so-called racial reckoning. However, this is not a new phenomenon, in fact in the history of racial equality, images have consistently served as a catalyst for public response and, on occasion, legal progress. For example, the violence caught on film toward peaceful protesters on Bloody Sunday triggered a pivotal turning point in the Civil Rights Movement as global attention was captured, resulting in the Voting Rights Act of 1965. In 1991, the videotaped beating of Rodney King by Los Angeles police sparked the notorious LA race riots motivating reforms to address excessive force in the department’s policing practices through measures including discipline reports and the diversification of LAPD leadership. I witnessed this personally as a student following the events of August 2017 in Charlottesville, as steps to address remnants of racism at the University of Virginia were set in motion by the jarring front-page image of white supremacists brandishing tiki torches on Grounds and national response to this display of hatred. More than reading or hearing about these instances, images seem to capture our attention as they depict truth in an undeniable capacity. It would follow then that bearing witness to injustice presents a unique challenge to respond and engage. Yet, we are trapped in a cycle which has provided no relief to the systemic effects of racial violence and discrimination in our country.
The Pitfall of Subjectivity
One plausible explanation for this cycle is the subjective nature of images themselves. The obvious and blatant racist exercise of violence at the hands of police seemed to be an objective fact. However, I discounted the influence of our subjective view on images even outside of the artistic canon. Any benefit provided by visual proof is negated significantly by the effects of prejudice and bias that we contribute to their evaluation. This was exemplified in the 2007 case of Scott v. Harris, where a question of Summary Judgment was framed significantly around an exercise of visual analysis. The image in question there, a police chase video resulting in the severe injury of Victor Harris, was treated as an objective fact, thereby allowing the court to privilege its own view. By contrast, scholars have considered that various citizens would have viewed the facts differently as a result of shared backgrounds and experiences. Harris demonstrates that as much as visual proof suggests the holy grail in ameliorating racial injustice, we must address the flaw not only of subjectivity but the pervasive issue of bias before we can consider images as tools of fact. Ultimately, the homogenous nature of our legal system seeks to diminish any progress that the documentation of the reality of racism offers by privileging a lens that excludes the lived experiences of those who bear the brunt of injustice.
How We Value Time
Another possible explanation for the failure to implement actionable change in the wake of these images has to do with the value of time. Images of brutality, murder, and injustice trigger a temporary shift in priorities and encourage viewers to engage, process, and respond. Therefore, images maintain a power not only to document but to also magnify the distinct barriers faced by Black Americans, amplifying the gravity of an otherwise momentary experience.
Ultimately, however, our relationship to time in our daily life explains the inevitable lull in momentum and return to the cycle of complacency. Time is finite and therefore each minute is valuable. One need only to look at the legal field, where lawyers place a premium on the medium of time (an average of $728 per hour). Our daily lives are riddled with competing priorities and tasks demanding our attention. Therefore, it follows that we have found ways to make engagement with these issues more convenient; simply re-sharing a post, adding a resource to your social media page, or sending a pre-written email to your Congressman. While there are of course benefits to increasing the accessibility of information and resources to be educated on these issues, the temptation of passive and performative activism is all too high. A video lasting an excruciating eight-minute and 46 seconds, therefore, loses significance in the grand scheme of 1440 minutes per day.
What Needs to Change
In all, as much as images seemed to emerge as a powerful tool in the so-called "Year of Racial Reckoning" the incorporation of visual analysis into a legal context is not immune to the greater problems of the legal system. So long as the individuals who are most harmed by racism are not represented by those who hold the power to institute actionable change, the same cycle can persist.
You are entitled to restrict access to your paper if you want to. But we all derive immense benefit from reading one another's work, and I hope you won't feel the need unless the subject matter is personal and its disclosure would be harmful or undesirable.
To restrict access to your paper simply delete the "#" character on the next two lines:
Note: TWiki has strict formatting rules for preference declarations. Make sure you preserve the three spaces, asterisk, and extra space at the beginning of these lines. If you wish to give access to any other users simply add them to the comma separated ALLOWTOPICVIEW list. |
|