Amnesty International’s “It’s Not Happening Here. But It Is Happening Now.” campaign: A case study for the ‘re-humanisation’ of human rights abuse victims.

40 min readAug 9, 2019

Note: This Dissertation was written and submitted as a final project for my BA in Journalism and Media (2014–17) at Birkbeck, University of London.

Abstract

Considering the ubiquity of human rights abuses, there is a pressing need to portray victims as human beings. This is important at both moral and practical levels because all persons should be recognised as human, and also to facilitate actions that can relief them of suffering. This paper uses a visual discourse analysis to critically engage with Amnesty International’s ‘It’s Not Happening Here. But It Is Happening Now.’ campaign through the theoretical lens of ‘Proper Distance’, ‘Politics of Pity’, ‘Composition’, ‘Othering’, ‘Anatopism’, ‘Positive and Negative Imagery’, ‘Disorder’, and ‘Power Relations’. The paper found that Amnesty International’s campaign portrays Distance as an active factor in the emergence of politics, Anatopism as a countering force of Othering, and that images can have agency.

Acknowledgements

I would like to extend my gratitude to Dr Tim Markham who has redefined the meaning of Education in my eyes, and whose guidance was invaluable throughout the past three years.

• CHAPTER 1 — INTRODUCTION……………………………………..

1.1 Outline of the Paper…………………………………………………

• CHAPTER 2 — CASE STUDY………………………………………….

2.1 Amnesty International:

‘It’s Not Happening Here.

But It Is Happening Now.’ ………………………………………………..

• CHAPTER 3 — LITERATURE REVIEW………………………………

3.1 Proper Distance, Politics of Pity,

and Composition………………………………………………………….

3.2 Othering, and Anatopism…………………………………………….

3.3 Positive and Negative Imagery, Disorder,

and Power Relations………………………………………………………

• CHAPTER 4 — METHODOLOGY………………………………………

4.1 Discourse Analysis……………………………………………………..

4.2 Strengths and Weaknesses……………………………………………..

4.3 Relevance, Application, and Research Questions…………………….

• CHAPTER 5 — FINDINGS…………………………………………………

5.1 Is Distance Political? …………………………………………………..

4.2 How can Othering be reversed?……………………………………….

5.3 Can an Image Have Agency?…………………………………………..

• CHAPTER 6 — CONCLUSION…………………………………………….

• BIBLIOGRAPHY……………………………………………………………

CHAPTER 1 — INTRODUCTION

“It is no doubt possible to create conditions under which men are dehumanized — such as concentration camps, torture, famine — but this does not mean that they become animal-like; and under such conditions, not rage and violence, but their conspicuous absence is the clearest sign of dehumanization.”

(Arendt 1970:63)

When observing the contemporary state of both international and home affairs, even if just superficially, it does not take a great amount of effort to encounter an overwhelming number of scenarios where human suffering is taking place.

Currently, there is a war-induced famine in Yemen (see, for example, ITV 2017), en masse refugee migration from Syria (see, for example, Washington Post 2017), subjugation of Palestinians in Israel (see, for example, Human Rights Watch 2017), US’s own Guantanamo Bay prison’s questionable practices (see, for example, VICE 2017), or Venezuela’s political unrest (see, for example, The Telegraph 2017). The list stretches well beyond the examples mentioned, and it would be virtually impossible to provide a comprehensive account of all human right’s infringements across the globe.

In the face of such ungraspable numbers, it is more meaningful to focus on the common element of such cases, rather than their differential specificities. More specifically, to acknowledge the universal condition of humanity, and to analyse the complexities of its representation.

Moreover, representations attempt to reflect life’s inherent complexities to those who are not directly present, as such, they are inspired by real-life but may resort to stylistic modifications in order to convey emotions as well as images.

In Hannah Arendt’s quote above, ‘rage and violence’ are described as essential expressions of humanity in the face of man-made suffering, without which the human condition is removed. In other words, humaneness can be recognised in action and agency, and is lost in their absence.

Such factors are mostly recognisable when suffering is witnessed first-person and can easily be lost in the communicative process of representations. This work concerns itself with the re-humanising capability of images by analysing depictions of suffering as something that does not necessarily suspend human condition, but rather exists alongside it.

Furthermore, as a result of ongoing advancements in the field of communications the local is becoming global by means of “electronic technologies, [meaning that] awareness of others is heightened” (Gibson et al 2012:312). Consequently, there is an amounting exposure to developments from disparate parts of the globe, which removes the credibility of claims to ignorance about other people’s misfortunes; In other words, statements like “‘I did not know’ and ‘I did not realise’ are no longer” (Ellis 2002:9) as convincing as they once were.

When (conscious or unconscious) ignorance, or concealment, ceases to be an option for those preoccupied with the production of representations, the question no longer revolves around what subjects to portray, but how to portray them. A contemporary example of this being, on the one hand, Nigel Farage’s poster portraying refugees as an invading mass threatening Britain (see, for example, Huffington Post 2016), while on the other hand, UNHCR’s (The UN Refugee Agency) poster of a harmless, smiling refugee woman (see USA for UNHCR 2017). The former paradoxical examples symbolically reflect the importance of the issues treated in this work, for in today’s society one subject can be either portrayed as a victim or an aggressor, good or evil, the threatened or the threat, a human or a sub-human. And such distinctions matter, if not because of truth and public sentiment, then for the simple moral debt owed to those depicted in such images.

1.1 Outline of the Paper

This work analyses how representations of victims can be produced in a manner that does not reduce suffering to a voyeuristic spectacle, promotes political engagement, dilutes perception barriers, and simultaneously preserves the subjects’ condition as human beings.

In order to pursue this, the work is arranged into six chapters: Introduction, Case Study, Literature Review, Methodology, Findings, and Conclusion.

The first chapter positions the topic explored within a greater context to highlight its relevance, alongside an outline of the paper. Moreover, the second chapter gives an introduction to the case study by broadly defining what Amnesty International is and explaining its ‘It’s Not Happening Here. But It Is Happening Now.’ campaign. The paper then moves onto its third chapter, which aims at explicating the theoretical and conceptual frameworks of ‘Proper Distance’, ‘Politics of Pity’, ‘Composition’, ‘Othering’, ‘Anatopism’, ‘Positive and Negative Imagery’, ‘Disorder’, and ‘Power Relations’. Furthermore, the fourth chapter establishes Discourse Analysis as the method utilised in linking the literature review to the case study and introduces the research questions that will guide the following section (‘Is Distance Political?’, ‘How Can Othering be Reversed?’, and ‘Can Images Have Agency?’). The fifth chapter applies the theories and concepts outlined earlier to the case study in order to give an analytical response to the questions set out in the methodology chapter. Finally, the last chapter summarises the work developed throughout, and concludes with a set of recommendations.

CHAPTER 2 — CASE STUDY

2.1 Amnesty International: ‘It’s Not Happening Here. But It Is Happening Now.’

Starting in the form of a movement in the 1960’s by British lawyer Peter Benenson, Amnesty International (AI) became an internationally acknowledged Non-Governmental Organisation. AI resorts to “detailed research and determined campaigning, (…) [in order to] help fight abuses of human rights worldwide” (Amnesty International 2017). Amnesty has earned a global reputation, among activists and governments alike, for its capacity to ignite meaningful change where it is needed, while still being “independent of any political ideology, economic interest or religion” (Amnesty International 2017).

The ‘It’s Not Happening Here. But It Is Happening Now.’ campaign was originally developed for Amnesty International in Switzerland, by Zurich-based advertising agency Walker. The campaign is made-up “of 200 individual posters, each meticulously matched to its specific surroundings, showing actual scenes of human rights abuse from around the world” (D&AD 2017). In order to achieve the effect required, real photographs of human rights abuses (taken by photojournalists from around the world) were juxtaposed onto a second photograph of the immediate physical background of its location (such as, as avenues, sidewalks, surrounding architecture, any visible greenery, among other components). This juxtaposition, once assembled onto a billboard, would then give the appearance that there was nothing standing between the person looking at it, and the subject depicted. In other words, the campaign aimed at creating the illusion of co-presence between spectator and victim.

In spite of the innovative creativity of the campaign and its immeasurable visual impact as whole, its sheer volume meant that, in order to efficiently analyse it, this work would have to focus on specific case studies. As a result, the cases observed in this paper consist of a caucasian male in chains, a pair of ‘ungendered’ (as in their gender is not visually recognisable) aggressor and victim, and ultimately an African child soldier. These case studies were chosen after careful consideration of various factors, including ethnicity, gender, culture, role, and identity. This choice was made in order to reflect on an eclectic plurality of issues of self and representation, in an attempt to produce an inclusive analysis.

CHAPTER 3 — LITERATURE REVIEW

3.1 Proper Distance, Politics of Pity, and Composition

Technologies have reshaped the fundamentals of human interaction, and consequently how distance is perceived. As a result, “the particular centrality of responsibility as a precondition for a moral life” (Silverstone 2003:17) has shifted from people to technologies. In order to counterbalance this tendency, Silverstone proposes a ‘Proper Distance’ which lies in the “paradox of connection and separateness and in the ambiguities which we as individuals have to resolve in our relationship with the other” (Silverstone 2003:8). It is in the process of this relationship “that the creation of an ethical or moral life becomes, or does not become, possible” (Silverstone 2003:8). Moreover, Proper Distance is something that needs to be negotiated in order to strike a balance between “being so far removed from other people that they seem beyond reach of care and compassion or so closely aligned that we refuse to accept difference and resist recognizing and valuing the stranger” (Hull et al 2014:19).

Ultimately, Proper Distance’s raison d’être rests in the fact that “[t]echnologies don’t care. Technologies can’t care. [And t]echnologies can’t be made to care.” (Silverstone 2003:17). Therefore, in a summarised manner, Proper Distance is the conceptual space existing between sufferer and viewer, and it is properly achieved when the latter is far enough from the former that he can face the situation objectively, but close enough that he still recognises the sufferer as a human being.

The images and rhetoric conveyed by technologies, result in mediated representations which “can have negative consequences for political and social decision-making and can be implied in social and political inequalities” (Fürsich 2010:116). Moreover, image representations “encapsulate common ideas of significance and trigger predictable thoughts, [or] feelings” (Sontag 2003:77). These feelings can either be used to blame “the victims by eliminating their basic human attributes and thus their claims for protection” (Steuter et al 2008:40) or “contribute to a broader, complex story of social justice and progress, and evoke the idea of solidarity with distant strangers” (Orgad 2013:301).

The feelings aroused by certain representations, if done right, can lead to further engagement with the subjects depicted. As a consequence, Boltanski identified the concept of ‘Politics of Pity’ as the capacity that feelings have to place the question of suffering “under potential tension because it gathers people together and unites them around a cause” (Boltanski 2000:6). To Boltanski, pity is the opposite of compassion, which he sees as an action “carried out in the presence of the suffering, locally and without being accompanied by a representation” (Boltanski 2000:6), and politics is “the operation of generalization which allows a move from the local to the global” (Boltanski 2000:6). In other words, “[t]he politics of pity is [a] symbolic mechanism of mediation that seeks to motivate the spectators’ move from dispassionate observation to agency, to public conduct” (Chouliaraki 2006:44). Ultimately, it is essential to acknowledge “the role of distance between those who actually suffer and those who perform the politics of pity” (Oushakine 2006:302), for it is that spatial separation that allows for an enlightened and meaningful approach to the victim’s situations. In addition, the Politics of Pity defined that the “sight of suffering is only legitimate when it leads to action” (Boltanski 2000:6), a thought echoed by Sontag, who claimed that the only non-voyeuristic spectators of suffering were either “those who could do something to alleviate it (…) or those who could learn from it” (Sontag 2003:37).

Moreover, central to the emergence of any form of feelings is the way in which images are composed, and consequently presented. This is especially meaningful in the case of photography, where the act of framing or “delimitation is surely interpretive, as are the effects of angle, focus and light” (Butler 2005:823).

The compositional dimension of photography further demonstrates that “pictures are frequently used in ways that depict not what is the core of the (…) story, but peripheral, symbolic, associative aspects of its events” (Zelizer 2005:31). Henceforth, it is this symbolic value that acts as a trigger for the “feelings that have been aroused, the knowledge that has been communicated.” (Sontag 2003:90). Furthermore, how a photograph is produced or arranged can have polar effects: on the one hand, it can enhance the fact that “compositional features not only abstract from the particularity of the event, but further remove the event from the order of lived experience to the domain of art” (Chouliaraki 2006:103), or on the other hand, allow “a single image to call up complex emotional and intellectual associations” (Steuter et al 2008:69).

3.2 Othering, and Anatopism

Othering, as popularised by Edward Said in his work ‘Orientalism’, concerns itself with “the culturally sanctioned habit of deploying large generalisations by which reality is divided into various collectives: languages, races, types, colors, mentalities, each category being not so much a neutral designation as an evaluative interpretation” (Said 2003:227). The ‘Other’ is then a subjective construct that legitimises, “defines and secures one’s own identity by distancing and stigmatising an(other)” (Grove et al 2006:1933). Therefore, Othering is both a social construction, supported by centuries-old of Western intellectual, political and institutional traditions that reinforce binary discourses which suggest that “if they [non-Westerners] are associated with nature, then we must be associated with nature’s opposite, culture.” (Steuter et al 2008:28). This polarisation of preconceptions is problematised further by the underlying meanings of ‘culture’ and ‘nature’ — The former being associated with “intellectual development-refinement, learning and knowledge, formal government and law, and a ‘civilized restraint’ in their emotional, sexual and civil life” (Hall 2003:243), while the latter is synonymous with “the open expression of emotion and feeling rather than intellect, a lack of ‘civilized refinement’ in sexual and social life, a reliance on custom and ritual, and the lack of developed civil institutions” (Hall 2003:243). The obvious conflict present being the modern persons [the West] versus their primitive counterparts whom need to be governed, studied, or taught. These perceptions of the distant and different Other may result in the production of ‘marginal beings’, regardless if “[t]hey may be doing nothing morally wrong” (Douglas 1966:1).

The recognition and demarcation of Others is more immediately achieved through visual cues which (in relation to the marginalisation of those who are different) “contributes to sustaining powerful hierarchies of human life” (Chouliaraki 2006:90). These hierarchies, felt in the binary representations of the Western World (mainly North America and Europe) against its Oriental counterparts, normalises or justifies the display of “photographs of cruelties inflicted on those with darker complexions in exotic countries” since the portrayed “other, even when not an enemy, is regarded only as someone to be seen, not someone (like us) who also sees” (Sontag 2003:65).

This perception of the distant Other as different from ‘Us’ is then perpetuated through “[c]ontemporary mass media [which] operate as a normalising forum for the social construction of reality” (Fürsich 2010:116). This normalisation enables further perceptual alienations, which facilitate the creation of an amorphous threat that emerges from “[o]ur most violent passions and our most dehumanizing metaphors”, ultimately resulting in “enemies that we ourselves most actively help to construct” (Steuter et al 2008:26).

Paradoxically, as much as the ‘Other’ can be constructed trough a set of strategically developed discourses, it can also be deconstructed by the unexpected encounter of commonality between ‘us’ and ‘them’. Visually, Anatopism can be seen as a gateway to rectify misconstrued preconceptions, since it manifests itself when the viewer “confront[s] both the landscape and its peoples as simultaneously Other and familiar” (Williams 2015:370). The concept of Anatopism, in its simplest form, is the “spatial misplacement” (Aravamudan 2001:336) of visual cues, or “the presence of items that seem spatially out of place” (Williams 2015:360). When such visual cues clash with previously constructed perceptions of others, “identity comes under violent attack” (Williams 2015:370), both the identity of the observer and the Other, since they rely on their polar opposition to define one another. Moreover, the “effect of anatopism is to establish equivalence among disparate locales, thus producing a new configuration of possible connections among them” (Chouliaraki 2006:174). In summary, Anatopism works as a form of an irrefutable visual ‘evidence’ that arises from the “odd juxtaposition of the familiar and foreign” (Williams 2015:371), which consequentially contributes to the re-humanisation of the formerly perceived ‘Other’, by ‘absolving’ him or her from mistaken preconceptions.

3.3 Positive and Negative Imagery, Disorder, and Power Relations

The internal struggles within institutions representing human rights issues have resulted in divided approaches toward the depiction of subjects. These divisions have produced two main types of representations: on the one hand, ‘Positive Imagery’ which “strives to depict distant others as self-sufficient, dignified, active agents, situated within their communities and social contexts” (Orgad 2013:301), while on the other hand, ‘Negative Imagery’ which focuses on displaying “helpless, passive victims” (Orgad 2013:309). Ultimately, Cameron and Haanstra claimed that an “emphasis on the positive rather than the negative is more effective at triggering psychological responses in humans towards suffering and injustice” (Cameron et al 2008:1480).

Consequently, the importance of how subjects of human suffering and victimisation are depicted highlight the fact that “[t]he nature of humanitarian organizations’ branding strategies may have crucial implications for the construction of humanitarianism and, more generally, morality in the public sphere” (Vestergaard 2008:474).

Furthermore, certain campaigns can have an impact on public space and disrupt its environment. Especially true in the case study explored in this paper, the re-organisation of space in order to display humanitarian abuses can foment the emergence of disorder, given that their sheer presence “spoils [the] pattern” (Douglas 1966:1) of quotidian life. Therefore, presenting situations and human beings in unexpected spaces creates “the social experience of disorder [which] is expressed by powerfully efficacious symbols of impurity and danger” (Douglas 2002:86). Moreover, since order is a constricting pattern of specific elements, disorder “by implication is unlimited (…) [and] its potential for patterning is indefinite” (Douglas 1966:1), and it is in the possibilities that may arise from disorder that both power and danger lie, for they threaten existing patterns and offer endless possibilities of replacement.

This paper defines power from a Foucauldian perspective, which sees it as something to be “exercised rather than possessed” (Foucault 1991:26), and consequently analyses “power relations through the antagonism of strategies” (Foucault 1982:780). As human interactions engage in attempts of influencing each other’s actions, “the exercise of power consists in guiding the possibility of conduct and putting into order the possible outcome” (Foucault 1982:789). This approach focuses on a “relational view of power as a function of a network of relations between subjects” (Cronin 1996:57), which rely on the existence of freedom for the sustenance of said relations. Henceforth, “the idea of exercising power must admit the possibility of it not being exercised” (Patton 1989:261), which ultimately places power under the guise of persuasion, rather than inflexible or unquestionable command. The notion of freedom here being defined in relation to “subjects who have a field of possible choices before them — choices about the way to behave or react or how to realize themselves socially” (Burkitt 1993:55).

In addition, the interactions between free subjects whom attempt to persuasively govern each other’s actions are Power Relations. These relations, according to Foucault, require the existence of two elements if they are to be manifested in their authentic form. The first condition asks “that “the other” (the one over whom power is exercised) to be thoroughly recognised and maintained to the very end as a person who acts” (Foucault 1982:789), while the second condition requires that, when involved in a power relation, the aforementioned subject has the possibility of “a whole field of responses, reactions, and possible inventions” (Foucault 1982:789) opening up. Consequently, it is fair to consider the medium of an image as a plausible participant in power relations, since “it is the medium that shapes and controls the scale and form of human association and action” (McLuhan 2006:108).

CHAPTER 4 — METHODOLOGY

4.1 Discourse Analysis

Discourse analysis is the method chosen for this work, as it allows for a more profound deconstruction of visual representations and their assumed impact. This will be applied to the case study from a qualitative, rather than quantitative, perspective.

Discourse analysis “is used to explore how images construct specific views of the social world” (Rose 2016:192), and is, therefore, an effective tool to engage in-depth with issues of human rights representations. Moreover, this method recognises images as “sites in which social meanings are created and reproduced and social identities are formed” (Pritchard et al 2001:172), allowing the analyst to take an interpretative stance in relation to the subjects being analysed. Furthermore, the process through which images are explored relies on a variety of theoretical material, which is used “in convincing ways (…) [and] had previously been seen as quite unrelated” (Rose 2016:196).

In addition, discourse analysis concerns itself with presenting an explanation of social processes that might arise from certain representations in relation “to the particular social contexts in which they are located” (Hammersley 2002:2). Henceforth, this type of analysis accounts for “a systematic approach whose findings are open to evaluation” (Wetherell et al 1988:183), and as a consequence of such openness, allows for the pursuit of profound or unexpected findings.

4.2 Strengths and Weaknesses

No method is exempt of shortcomings, and considering the subjective nature of discourse analysis, a few cautionary measures should be considered. Firstly, the chosen “language is constructing an interpretation rather than revealing the truth” (Rose 2016:216), meaning that the approach taken in this paper presents a theoretically founded attempt to understand the campaign, rather than an unchallengeable empirical truth. Secondly, by focusing on the existence of social meaning constructed through a sample of images, the discursive analysis employed in this work is “less interested in thinking about the practices and institutions through which such constructions produced, disseminated and lived” (Rose 2016:219). In other words, by focusing on the meaning conveyed by the images themselves, this work overlooks the greater contexts of their production and reception, such as Amnesty International as an institution, empirical audience reflections, and the greater social mechanisms and settings under which such images are located.

Thirdly, as a consequence of the complexity of the imagery involved in the case study, and the fact that “there exists no established method of discourse analysis particularly for images” (Christmann 2008:3), the analysis consciously overlooks the textual elements embedded in the images themselves, in order to analyse them “with great care for detail” (Rose 2016:213). As a result, the campaign’s slogan (‘It’s Not Happening Here. But It Is Happening Now.’), alongside AI’s logo (a candle wrapped in barbed wire) and name, are not considered throughout the work.

In spite on the aforementioned shortcomings, discourse analysis is the best method to meaningfully assess depictions of human rights abuses, because it allows for a profound interpretation of the images selected as informed by a plurality of theoretical voices. Moreover, discourse analysis “is particularly strong at exploring the effects of the compositional and social modalities of images” (Rose 2016:218), a strength which proves to be highly suitable in the analysis of the socially impactful productions of meaning explored in the case study. Also, as a result of being “centrally concerned with the production of social difference through visual imagery” (Rose 2016:217) discourse analysis allows for the prioritisation of quality over quantity. In other words, this method gives preference to an in-depth analysis of representation impact, instead of being preoccupied with a vast, albeit broadly, analysed case study.

Overall, discourse analysis is an effective methodological tool to profoundly explore images from a variety of theoretical stances, in order to arrive at an innovative and coherent perspective of social meaning production.

4.3 Relevance, Application, and Research Questions

After weighing the aforementioned strengths and weaknesses, discourse analysis proved to be the most applicable tool to explore this work for a variety of reasons. First, when considering the intricacies of the case study, the application of a single theory would have exhausted itself, while simultaneously not scratching the surface of the campaign. AI’s ‘It’s Not Happening Here. But It Is Happening Now.’ relies on several interdependent aspects (such as media, sociology, location, politics, human rights, representation, among many others) in order to convey its message, and to analyse it from a single perspective would prove to be insufficiently insightful. By allowing a plural approach to a specific set of images, discourse analysis facilitates a multimodal approach that funnels a disparate amount of literature towards the pursuit of an informed conclusion.

Secondly, when considering the restrictions imposed by the word count of this work, it would have proven inefficient to analyse the AI’s campaign quantitatively due to the sheer volume of posters available. A task complicated further by the technical nature of the campaign itself, which by juxtaposing the photographs onto its specific surroundings resulted in two-hundred individual cases (see Case Study chapter). As a consequence, a discourse analysis permits a qualitative approach to the campaign, meaning that a sample of three individual photographs can be analysed in-depth and in a manner that offers a reflexive insight into the campaign itself. The sample, as broadly mentioned in the Case Study chapter, was carefully selected on the basis of several considerations: Ethnicity of the subject(s); Gender; Age; Visual cultural cues; Role of the subject(s); Spatial surroundings; Identity; Facial recognition; and Physical representation. These criteria were extensively thought-through in order to produce an analysis that is both profound in its considerations, but also inclusive of a wide range of representations.

Finally, the task of procuring meaning beyond what is immediately obvious, is aided by discourse analysis because it is a method that requires attention to detail, and the interpretation beyond what is immediately available. This is especially significant in the case of AI’s campaign, which as a result of its complex mixture of visual cues (such as the immediate surroundings, the subjects depicted, the social setting, among many others) presents a challenge to its viewership. Consequently, for a meaningful insight to be produced, there must be a filtration process of certain elements of an image, in order to favour more relevant aspects. In this work, the decision to focus exclusively on the visual composition of images and their impact meant that the textual cues present in the campaign’s posters were consciously overlooked.

Although the textual elements present within the images were not void of relevance, to assess them would have hindered the fullest capacity of a visual analysis, consume an already rationed amount of words, and distract from the most impactful site of meaning conveyance: the image itself.

Overall, discourse analysis was chosen because of its capacity to facilitate the production of an in-depth investigation into the ‘re-humanising’ capabilities of AI’s campaign, and will be applied to the following research questions:

• Is Distance Political?

• How Can Othering be Reversed?

Can Images Have Agency?

CHAPTER 5 — FINDINGS

It is a well-known fact about our biological constitution as human beings that we receive visual information through our retinas upside-down, this information is then decoded and re-contextualized in our brains in order to produce a coherent ‘real-life’ representation of the world before us (see Sightsavers 2016). This unconscious process carried out by both our ocular functions and cerebral capacities is but the first of many interpretations made on a daily basis.

Once our pre-conscious decipherment of the material world is made, a more conscious — or in other words, non-automatic — interpretation of our daily experiences is brought to the fore. In such scenarios, there are varying levels of complexity dictating our choices, responses or actions. Although, ultimately we navigate the world around us via a complex plethora of hints and cues that permeate our senses, senses which are just the starting point for an innumerable amount of possibilities.

Amnesty International’s (AI) campaign ‘It’s Not Happening Here. But It Is Happening Now.’ presents a challenge for our post-unconscious interpretation of the ‘real-world’, for it disrupts it by framing a ‘real’ person in a ‘surreal’ (speaking in terms of the campaign’s socio-geographical location) scenario. The adulterated photographs presenting to whomever may come across them a reality which has to be received, interpreted and re-contextualized by our unconscious and conscious self respectfully.

This section is further organised in a manner that addresses the research questions provided in the methodology chapter, with each question explored in the three following sections.

5.1 Is Distance Political?

Representations are central to how humans navigate their social surroundings, and they function as a tool to explicate and communicate to others something that is either intrinsically personal (such as feelings), or something that is physically and cognitively distant. To ‘re’-present something or someone, means to go beyond a demonstration of what is not immediately available, and in the wake of such unavailability, that presentation of something or someone must be repeated or replicated in order to shed a light on their existence. Therefore, a representation is not an exact replica of the original subject, as it can be altered in order to compensate for the subject’s lack of immediate presence, ultimately “fulfil[ling] a purpose, according to a tendency, in a specific historical, intellectual, and even economic status” (Said 2003:273).

Figure 1 depicts a Caucasian male chained by his arms and one leg, resulting in a portrait of a person standing in a visually disturbing and uncomfortable stance, in which the man is forced to conceal his face and look away from the passer-by. Moreover, the picture is juxtaposed against the original urban scenario, creating an illusion that the subject is chained in a public pathway, under the shade of a tree, and in the possible range of whomever may peer outside the open windows of the building standing behind him.

The most obvious visual cue in the image’s effect as a re-humanizing agent of suffering victims, lies in fact that the body is represented in its integral proportions. The man depicted in the image is a full-bodied (in both size and framing) human being, interacting with his immediate physical surroundings as anyone else could — for example, any passer-by could stand on that wall if he or she wanted to, for it is not physically impossible to do so –, although the photograph of the man was taken elsewhere. This paradoxical relationship of distant proximity is reminiscent of the concept of Proper Distance discussed in the literature review chapter, in which Silverstone identifies the need for a balance to be struck when mediating representations of suffering, in order to achieve an ethical or moral engagement. In this sense, to achieve a ‘Proper Distance’ representations should not be, on the one hand, distanced “to a point beyond strangeness, beyond reach and beyond humanity”, while on the other hand, be “drawn so close as to be indistinguishable from ourselves” (Silverstone 2003:10). It can be argued then, that the complete human figure who is suffering elsewhere, while standing in an accessible physical place, is both distant enough in relation to the situation he is in, while close enough that one could practically be in his place. In a summarised manner, by sharing the same physical space, even if just at a representative level, there is an acknowledgement that the person on the photograph is as human as the passer-by.

Furthermore, Susan Sontag claimed that “photographs are a means of making ‘real’ (or ‘more real’) matters that the privileged and the merely safe might prefer to ignore” (Sontag 2003:6). By privileged, Sontag refers mostly to the Western World, the Global North, or more specifically, developed countries — where the calamities inflicting suffering upon its peoples are provoked by economic, social, or natural circumstances (for example, poverty, crime, or a flood).

This safety when witnessing mediated human suffering (for example, in televised news) highlights the polarised positions between the observers and their depicted counterparts, and consequently this “separation of the humane condition of the spectators from the condition of the sufferers best defines the quality of this sufferer as an absolute Other” (Chouliaraki 2006:109). Paradoxically, as Figure 1 shows, by removing the contextual narratives of news reports, and also by transplanting the image of the sufferer from the contrastingly reduced physical dimensions of a television, laptop or newspaper, all that remains is a body, more specifically a human body, in a familiar location unburdened by unfamiliar narratives; All that is left is a human being in distress. This blurring of the distance between the ‘safe’ spectator and the ‘threatened’ sufferer does not become eradicated to the point that it hurts its purpose, which in this case is to raise awareness to issues of human rights infringements on behalf of AI.

Moreover, one of the principal facts of representations lies in their alteration of reality, which is accepted by those who observe it, because it is a technique that allows for a more meaningful communication of said reality. In the case of Figure 1, the removal of the subject from its original physical surroundings is the alteration that facilitates the erasure of cues external to the human being itself, that might distract from the ‘reality’ of his suffering. Boltanski, as mentioned in the literature review chapter, sees such distance as necessary for the emergence of pity, “which characterizes situations where the spectator is a happy person, not immediately concerned with, and at a distance from the one who suffers” (Boltanski 2000:6). In other words, pity is an objective sentiment, which surfaces beyond shock or emotional and physical immediacy, and such distance allows for a meaningful interpretation of another human being’s situation. In addition, Boltanski sees pity as a feeling enshrouded in political possibilities (which transcend their local immediacies), because of its capability to mobilise individuals “around common causes, whether in order to involve them in an action or to seek their approval and support for an action carried out in their name” (Boltanski 2000:6). This type of Politics of Pity is exactly what AI’s campaign aims at triggering, by encouraging citizens to engage with their causes, which are mainly centred around political pressure in the form of protests or petitions.

Furthermore, by focusing on how photographs are framed, Judith Butler also acknowledged their inherent political implications. She argued that the way a photograph is taken, and what components are either included on excluded in its composition, eliminate the necessity for “a caption or a narrative at work to understand that a political background is being explicitly formulated and renewed through the frame” (Butler 2005:823). Figure 1 further demonstrates the importance of composition, as explored in the literature review chapter, in regard to the impact that the inclusion or exclusion of elements may have on a photograph. Primarily by replacing its background, and consequently omitting its original scenario, the photograph universalises the question of human rights infringements by not constricting it to a specific place. This is achieved through the removal of any cultural cues imprinted in the original photograph — which may be anything from a jail cell to surrounding architecture, or uniforms and flags, or many other variables signifying cultural specificity. Moreover, by depicting a faceless man, the photograph represents human suffering itself rather than a specific individual, while simultaneously elevating the shape of the human body to that of an iconic symbol of itself, reflecting its fragility and yet integral constitution. The framing applied in Figure 1 works both as a humanizing factor, by emphasising the human figure, and also as a political agent, by making the sufferer a symbolic driving agent for political action.

Overall, the simultaneous presence and absence of distance as depicted in Figure 1 has the capacity to ignite political manifestations. This happens as a result of the form in which the image is composed, which represents the sufferer as a recognisable human being who can be helped through means of an organised body of concerned citizens.

4.2 How can Othering be reversed?

The last section focused primarily on issues of spatial surroundings as visual demarcations of proximity and distance, and their consequent impact on factors of humanization and political action.

This section will extend its gaze towards the manner in which individuals themselves are represented. Figure 2 portrays two persons, one aggressor and one victim, juxtaposed onto a quiet avenue. The aggressor appears to be midway through the action of stabbing the victim, and his or her garments are of light colours (predominantly a mixture of salmon and pink tonalities), fitting in an ‘ungendered’ manner (they could suit either a man or a woman), and wearing a head-cover somewhat reminiscent of a hijab (the Islamic head-scarf worn by Muslim women as a symbol of their faith). The slender body of the attacker accompanied by unrecognisable facial features, further complicates the attribution of a specific gender to the subject in question.

Furthermore, the victim, who is tied to a tree and appears to be about to get stabbed, is dressed in similar tones and wearing equally ‘ungendered’ clothes (in the sense that they do not display any bodily features immediately recognisable in either a man or a woman). Also, the sufferer has his or her head covered, to the point that it totally conceals the face. The item used to cover his or her head can either be a bag, as reminiscent of European medieval capital punishments — where criminals had their faces covered before being publicly executed –, or it can be a hijab which fell onto the face of the victim.

The emphasis on the depicted individual’s physical appearance, especially with regards to what they are wearing, is pertinent from the angle of identity as a defining factor of perceived humanity. Identity (especially in its visual demonstrations, such as modes of dressing) is constructed and presented individually and communally, and it is one of the most recognisable differences among peoples, societies and cultures. Identity as a construction, according to Said, “involves establishing opposites and “others” whose actuality is always subject to the continuous interpretation of their differences from “us”” (Said 2003:332). Othering, as addressed in the literature review chapter, can take many forms and be aimed at entire populations, and it can be argued that contemporarily (from a Western standpoint) Muslims have been highly regarded has an inherently different and threatening group of people. Hence, the hijab (or any other form of head-covering cloth) has been seen as a threatening symbol for certain sections of the ‘Western World’, and women wearing it have been dehumanised and downgraded to representatives of religious extremism, terrorism or just simply symbols of undefined danger (see, for example, Al-Jazeera 2017, or The Guardian 2017). The process of Othering, as a way to ostracise or even demonise people who do not integrally reflect the social status quo, has also been aided by mediated (mis)representations of “minorities as different, exotic, special, essentialised, or even abnormal” (Fürsich 2010:116). This trend has been contemporarily magnified by the recurrent terror attacks carried out globally by Islamic militants with radical ideologies, who have attracted innumerable amounts of news and commentary coverage, which reinforce the connections between Muslims and terror or violence.

By depicting a whole religion, culture or ethnicity as inherently connected to the ‘war on terror’ (and as a consequential omnipresent danger), the undefined Muslim has been portrayed as the enemy. And an enemy, much like a hero, is removed from the sphere of humanity — the former by being downgraded to a sub-human threat which has to be eliminated, while the latter upgraded to a supra-human whom has the capacity to protect the majority from any threat.

Figure 2, by portraying the binary of both victim an aggressor wearing head-covering cloths, eliminates the possible narrative of the head-covered threat. Since both subjects bare a visual mark of contemporary Othering and yet are simultaneously in an individual position of threat and threatened, there is a disruption of the idea of “the enemy Other as an indistinguishable mass”, which “is an essential strategy in the process of fabricating the enemy” (Steuter et al 2008:27) itself. In other words, both fragility and aggression are human conditions, and by portraying two visually similar individuals in opposing ends of the oppressor-oppressed spectrum Figure 2 reduces the individuals to their basic condition: Human.

Furthermore, acknowledging a human condition on otherwise ‘Othered’ persons can be achieved by a sudden realisation of common factors between originally preconceived polarised cultures or places. Anatopism, as defined in the literature review chapter, is the term applied to this deconstruction of false ideas or perceptions about the foreignness of places, cultures and peoples that, once observed, are more familiar, rather than contrasting with one’s own reality. With regards to Anatopism, Brian Williams observed that US troops fighting in Iraq created emotional bridges between them and the people they were supposed to be fighting, due “to a changing view of the landscape, because by destabilising the reductive divide between war and the home front, the combatant comes to locate himself within the perspective of the Other” (Williams 2015:376). In other words, by finding visual and cultural cues (such as technology or fashion, among others) in the people they were trained to perceive as ultimately different from them, the soldiers found themselves “[w]ith no visible enemy presence against to which to orient themselves”, opening the possibility for them to “question and even play with their own identities” (Williams 2015:378).

The conditions under which the AI campaign is presented, and to whom it is presented to, are not as strenuous as a war is, but there is still a possibility for Anatopism to occur. Consequently, by integrating the two individuals depicted on the billboard as interacting with the broader immediate physical environment, the gap between observer and sufferer can be bridged by showing that their feet can stand on the same ground as the viewer’s, or that the body of the passer-by could be leaning against the same tree as the victim’s. Furthermore, Figure 2 acts as a hyperbolic visual materialisation of Barbie Zelizer’s claim that “journalism needs photographic realism to enhance its ability to vouch for events in the real world” (Zelizer 2005:31), considering that Figure 2 both depicts an actual event juxtaposed onto the ‘real world’ of its physical immediacies.

Moreover, Stuart Hall defined stereotyping as occurring when something or someone was “reduced to a few essentials, [and] fixed in Nature by a few, simplified characteristics” (Hall 2003:249). Overall, Figure 2 challenges this definition by highlighting the universal condition of humanity that arises as a result of the contrasting roles of both aggressor and victim, a condition which trumps over their visual or aesthetic appearance. Also, by inherently disrupting the existing physical (and social, as a consequence of said disruption) surroundings, Figure 2 disassociates itself from any simplified characteristics, by portraying a complex array of paradoxical representations such as the distanced proximity — by interacting with their surroundings, while never having been there before –, or the supra-real absence of the persons depicted — by visually existing in a place where they physically are not.

Overall, Figure 2 shows that Othering can be reversed through the eradication of visual barriers. By displaying foreign-dressed subjects in a familiar setting, the image allows for the emergence of Anatopism, which demolishes conceptual divisions between human beings by placing constructed ideas of Othering in direct confrontation with visual evidence of common traits.

5.3 Can an Image Have Agency?

The former section focused mainly on visual cultural cues and their impact on either perpetuating preconceived perceptions of the distant ‘Other’, or deconstructing stereotypes lying at the heart of such Othering.

This section will also focus on human fragility, but not from the immediate standpoint of an obviously threatened victim.

Figure 3 shows an African child staring defiantly towards the viewer, dressed in a camouflage-patterned shirt, holding a firearm, and emerging mid-way from a train platform terminal. Only the upper-part of the body is visible, with the lower section supposedly concealed by the pit of the platform, as if the child was hiding in a ditch — such stance being reminiscent of trench-warfare, as popularised by WWI (see, for example, IWM 2017).

From a campaign perspective, this image is the polar opposite of ‘Negative Imagery’, which according to the literature review chapter “depicts victims as needy, passive, helpless and vulnerable” (Orgad 2013:301). The aforementioned adjectives do not apply to Figure 3, considering that the confrontational body language displayed by the armed child, if reproduced in real-life, would clearly invite the viewer to walk away from the subject, rather than approaching him with charitable intent. The combination of the boy’s gaze, his gun, his clean uniform and his fearless emergence from the pit (as opposing to crouching in fear), portray the subject as a strong, fearless human being. The child’s condition as a victim, therefore, arises from the inadequacy of his age to fulfil the role of a soldier, rather than any immediately perceptible infliction of bodily harm — which contrasts with the previously explored Figures 1 and 2, where one victim is chained and the other about to be stabbed.

Furthermore, Figure 3 disrupts the socio-physical environment around it, by portraying a subject who is not inherently frail and is armed with a gun in a train station. The immediate impact of such a depiction interrupts the quotidian environment of a place associated with order and predictability: the orderly nature of scheduled commuting, and the predictable safety and uneventfulness associated with it. When said predictability is destabilised, disorder occurs, which, as explored in the literature review chapter, can be “destructive to existing patterns; [but] also (…) has potentiality. [Because] [i]t symbolises both danger and power” (Douglas 1966:1). In this sense, the gun-wielding child, embodies both symbolisms — the danger of disruption, and the power of influence.

Power, as defined in the literature review chapter, is intended from a Foucauldian perspective, which sees it as “always a way of acting or being capable of acting upon an acting subject or acting subjects by virtue of their acting or being capable of action” (Foucault 1982:789); in other words, power is a “set of actions upon other actions” (Foucault 1982:789). Consequently, the child depicted in Figure 3 is in the possession of power, not by his physical capacity to interact with possible onlookers, but by his condition as a depiction of human fragility, which functions as a way to influence potential spectators to shape their future actions as a result of seeing the boy soldier — for example, access Amnesty International’s website and gather information on how to develop further actions (sign a petition, or participate in organised political lobbying or protesting).

By granting the child depicted in Figure 3 the possibility of entering in a power relation with the spectator (even if just a symbolic form of power), the child is also being acknowledged as an integral human being. An acknowledgement which arises from the fact that the boy can exert influence over the actions of others — rather than being reduced to a mere image, designed to ignite charitable emotions as a by-product of a binary representation of the weak child depending on the strong spectator (see, for example, UNICEF 2011). Moreover, Foucault highlighted a necessary condition for the existence of power relations, which is that “[p]ower is exerted only over free subjects, and only insofar as they are free.” (Foucault 1982:790).

As delineated in the literature review chapter, the prerequisite of freedom is essential, because true power lies in the capacity to conduct people towards performing a specific action, even when they have the freedom not to; power, therefore, trumps resistance, and governs behavioural choices.

In this case, the spectator whom witnesses Figure 3 is a free agent, whom has the freedom to contemplate it or walk away, to get posteriorly informed or remain ignorant, to get involved with AI or to remain passive, among several other choices.

From a Foucauldian perspective, there is clearly a power relation between the child soldier and his viewer. This relationship is triggered by the action of being armed in a train station (even if just in the form of a representation), which then can influence the further actions of the spectator. If the passer-by then chooses to act by taking political actions, he or she can shape the child’s (or others in his place) future actions — because, if efficient political action is taken, the child may be moved from the battlefield and put into a school.

Overall, Figure 3 humanises the child represented, primarily because it does not portray him as a fragile victim reduced to its needs, encapsulated in a static begging for people’s sadness and charity. Furthermore, the boy soldier (like Figures 1 and 2) disrupts his surroundings by interacting with the same physical components that all other passer-by’s do, in this case, the floor he is leaning on. This disruption ultimately empowers the child, who is a victim of his role as a soldier, rather than his weakness in the face of physical abuse. A power which is a central part of quotidian social relations and is in the possession of most citizens: the power humans have to influence other human’s behaviour.

CHAPTER 6 — CONCLUSION

This paper showed that images can be powerful vehicles in the depiction of victimised human beings, and how such representations can impact society at large.

Amnesty International’s campaign was demonstrated to make a positive contribution to depictions of suffering for several reasons. First, the relationship between distance and politics was addressed by observing the campaign from the theoretical perspectives of ‘Proper Distance’, ‘Politics of Pity’ and ‘Composition’. In this regard it was argued that the exemplary poster reduced the distance between its viewers and the victim enough to break down barriers of recognition, while still maintaining enough space to block assimilation or paralysis. This negotiation of distance then allowed for the possibility of political engagement on behalf of the observers, because it motivated them to mobilise around an issue that is happening beyond their immediate location. In addition, this process of recognition and political action were set in motion, in a primary level, as a result of the composition of the image displayed on the poster, which is portrayed as being a part of its physical surroundings.

Secondly, the campaign was analysed based on its potential to dilute the perceptual differences between the passer-by and the subjects depicted through the theoretical lens of ‘Othering’ and ‘Anatopism’. By explaining how the identities of ‘Others’ are constructed based on conceptual differences that contrast with the viewers, the paper showed how such perceptions of identity can be diminished to the point that they no longer hinder the recognition of victims as human beings. This destruction of ideological walls is shown as a by-product of Anatopism, which emerges in the moment the viewer sees a person previously thought to be inherently alien in his own socio-physical surroundings, resulting in the recognition of the victim as being as human as the observer.

Thirdly, the theoretical framework of ‘Positive and Negative Imagery’, ‘Disorder’, and ‘Power Relations’ was used to explore how the marketing strategy applied had a broader implication in granting agency to the victim depicted. By utilising an image that challenges the concept of a victim as someone who is inherently weak and needy, this application of Positive Imagery disrupted not only stereotyped preconceptions of sufferers, but also the space in which the poster is inserted. This led to the interruption of the predictable nature of social space and allowed for the emergence of disorder. Consequently, by empowering the victim depicted with the capability to generate disorder, he is allowed to grab the attention of the viewers and ultimately influence their behaviour. Henceforth, engaging in power relations with the observers, an interaction that belongs to the sphere of social life and is enacted by all free human beings.

Overall, Amnesty International’s ‘It’s Not Happening Here. But It Is Happening Now.’ campaign positively represents human rights abuse victims as human beings, without diminishing the plight of their suffering. An achievement that would be welcomed beyond the realm of humanitarian NGO’s and should be extended to all areas concerned with the representation of distant people or ethnic, religious or gender minorities — suffering or not. This sensitivity towards the eradication of conceptual differences that create fictional boundaries between human beings can (and should) be further adopted in journalistic practices, advertising, governmental policies, culture and arts (such as tv programmes, or movies).

Although, considering the contemporary volatility of the international socio-political sphere, it is more pressing than ever that the mental borders between ‘Us’ and the ‘Other’ are tore down, in order to first acknowledge that all persons are human, and then to start treating them as such.

It could be further recommended that Amnesty International continues to pursue its core mission of campaigning against global human rights abuses, while simultaneously taking advantage of its worldwide platform to challenge the way victims are represented, and consequently perceived.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

• Al-Jazeera (2017) ‘Australian women fight Islamophobia with scarves’. [Accessed Online 12/03/2017] <http://stream.aljazeera.com/story/201410032301-0024207>

• Amnesty International (2017) ‘WHAT WE DO’. [Accessed Online 14/03/2017] <https://www.amnesty.org/en/what-we-do/>

• Amnesty International (2017) ‘WHO WE ARE’. [Accessed Online 14/03/2017] <https://www.amnesty.org/en/who-we-are/>

• Aravamudan, S. (2001) ‘The Return of Anachronism’, MLQ: Modern Language Quarterly, Vol. 62, №4, pp. 331–353. [Accessed Online 20/04/2017] <https://muse.jhu.edu/article/22906/pdf>

• Arendt, H. (1970) “On Violence”. New York: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company.

• Boltanski, L. (2000) ‘The Legitimacy of Humanitarian Actions and their Media Representation: The Case of France’, Ethical Perspectives, Vol. 7, №1, pp. 3–16. [Accessed Online 03/04/2017] <http://www.ethical-perspectives.be/viewpic.php?LAN=E&TABLE=EP&ID=147>

• Burkitt, I. (1993) ‘Overcoming Metaphysics: Elias and Foucault on Power and Freedom’, Philosophy of the Social Sciences, Vol. 23, №1, pp. 50–72. [Accessed Online 17/04/2017] <http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/004839319302300103>

• Butler, J. (2005) ‘Photography, War, Outrage’, PMLA, Vol. 120, №3, pp. 822–827. [Accessed Online 15/04/2017] <http://www.jstor.org/stable/25486216?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents>

• Cameron, J., Haanstra, A. (2008) ‘Development Made Sexy: how it happened and what it means’, Third World Quarterly, Vol. 28, №8, pp. 1475–1489. [Accessed Online 05/04/2017] <http://courses.arch.vt.edu/courses/wdunaway/gia5524/cameron08.pdf>

• Christmann, G. B. (2008) ‘The Power of Photographs of Buildings in the Dresden Urban Discourse. Towards a Visual Discourse Analysis’, Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung / Forum: Qualitative Social Research, Vol. 9, №3, pp. 1–18. [Accessed Online 27/04/2017] <http://www.qualitative-research.net/index.php/fqs/article/view/1163/2570>

• Chouliaraki, L. (2006) “The Spectatorship of Suffering”. London: SAGE Publications Ltd.

• Cronin, C. (1996) ‘Bourdieu and Foucault on power and modernity’, Philosophy and Social Criticism, Vol. 22, №6, pp. 55–85. [Accessed Online 25/04/2017] <http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/019145379602200603>

• D&AD (2017) ‘Case Study: Amnesty International — It’s Not Happening Here, But It’s Happening Now’. [Accessed Online 03/02/2017] <https://www.dandad.org/en/d-ad-amnesty-international-its-not-happening-here-happening-social-good/>

• Douglas, M. (1966) ‘Chapter 6: POWERS AND DANGERS’, in Douglas, M. “Purity and Danger: An analysis of the concepts of pollution and taboo”. [Accessed Online 23/03/2017] <http://web.mit.edu/allanmc/www/douglas.powersdangers.pdf>

• Douglas, M. (2002) “Natural Symbols: Explorations in Cosmology”. London: Routledge.

• Ellis, J. (2002) “Seeing Things: Television in the Age of Uncertainty”. New York: I. B. Tauris & Co Ltd.

• Foucault, M. (1982) ‘The Subject and Power’, Critical Enquiry, Vol. 8, №4, pp. 777–795. [Accessed Online 11/04/2017] <http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/pdfplus/10.1086/448181>

• Foucault, M. (1991) ‘The body of the condemned’, in Foucault, M. “Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison” pp.3–31. London: Penguin Books. [Accessed Online 12/04/2017] <http://core.roehampton.ac.uk/repository2/content2/subs/J.Atkinson/J.Atkinson1989/Foucault%20(1991)%20The%20body%20of%20the%20condemned.pdf>

• Fürsich, E. (2010) ‘Media and the representation of Others’, International Social Science Journal, Vol. 61, №199, pp. 113–130. [Accessed Online 01/10/2016] <http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/wol1/doi/10.1111/j.1468-2451.2010.01751.x/full>

• Gibson, T., Murray, S. J. (2012) ‘Global Village’, in Danesi, M. “Encyclopedia of Media and Communication”, pp. 312–313. [Accessed Online 5/02/2017] <https://modernrhetoric.files.wordpress.com/2010/11/global-village.pdf>

• Grove, J. N., Zwi, A. B. (2006) ‘Our health and theirs: Forced migration, othering, and public health’, Social Science & Medicine, Vol. 62, №8, pp. 1931–1942. [Accessed Online 21/01/2017] <http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277953605004806>

• Hall, S. (2003) ‘The Spectacle of the ‘Other’ ’, in Hall, S. (ed.) “Representation: Cultural Representations and Signifying Practices”, pp. 223–279. London: Sage Publications Ltd.

• Hammersley, M. (2002) ‘Discourse Analysis: A Bibliographical Guide’. [Accessed Online 22/04/2017] <https://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?q=discourse+analysis+a+bibliographical+guide+Martyn&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj62aaG6cXTAhXLuRQKHQQIAEcQgQMIITAA>

• Hull, G. A., Stornaiuolo, A. (2014) ‘Cosmopolitan Literacies, Social Networks, and “Proper Distance”: Striving to Understand in a Global World’, The Ontario Institute for Studies in Education of the University of Toronto
Curriculum Inquiry, Vol. 44, №1, pp. 15–44. [Accessed Online 3/04/2017] <https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Amy_Stornaiuolo/publication/260307032_Cosmopolitan_Literacies_Social_Networks_and_Proper_Distance_Striving_to_Understand_in_a_Global_World/links/5720fbbf08ae5454b230fb63.pdf>

• Huffington Post (2016) ‘Nigel Farage Slated By Pro-EU Ken Clarke Over Infamous ‘Breaking Point’ Refugee Poster’. [Accessed Online 01/03/2017] <http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/nigel-farage-ken-clarke-breaking-point-poster_uk_5845c1c5e4b07ac7244927eb>

• Human Rights Watch (2017) ‘Israel/Palestine’. [Accessed Online 06/04/2017] <https://www.hrw.org/middle-east/n-africa/israel/palestine>

• IMW (2017) ’10 Photos Of Life In The Trenches’. [Accessed Online 12/03/2017] <http://www.iwm.org.uk/history/10-photos-of-life-in-the-trenches>

• ITV (2017) ‘’Pockets of famine’ already exist in Yemen, ITV News learns’. [Accessed Online 10/04/2017] <http://www.itv.com/news/2017-04-10/pockets-of-famine-already-exist-in-yemen-itv-news-learns/>

• McLuhan, M. (2006) ‘The Medium is the Message’, in Durham, M. G., Douglas, M. K. (eds) “Media and Cultural Studies: KeyWorks”, pp. 107–116. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.

• Orgad, S. (2013) ‘Visualizers of solidarity: organizational politics in humanitarian and international development NGOs’, Visual Communication, Vol. 12, №3, pp. 295–314. [Accessed Online 01/04/2017] <http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1470357213483057>

• Oushakine, S. A. (2006) ‘The Politics of Pity: Domesticating Loss in a Russian Province’, American Anthropologist, Vol. 108, №2, pp. 297–311. [Accessed Online 22/04/2017] <https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Serguei_Oushakine/publication/240650590_The_Politics_of_Pity_Domesticating_Loss_in_a_Russian_Province/links/556489aa08ae94e957204b1f.pdf>

• Patton, P. (1989) ‘Taylor and Foucault on Power and Freedom’, Political Studies, Vol. 37, №2, pp. 260–276. [Accessed Online 12/04/2017] <http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/j.1467-9248.1989.tb01482.x>

• Pritchard, A., Morgan, N. J. (2001) ‘Culture, identity and tourism representation: marketing Cymru or Wales?’, Tourism Management, Vol. 22, №2, pp. 167–179. [Accessed Online 15/03/2017] <http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0261517700000479>

• Rose, G. (2016) “Visual Methodologies: An Introduction to Researching with Visual Materials”. London: SAGE Publications Ltd.

• Said, E. (2003) “Orientalism”. London: Penguin Books Ltd.

• Sightsavers (2016) ‘The eyes’. [Accessed Online 15/04/2017] <https://www.sightsavers.org/eye/>

• Silverstone, R. (2003) ‘Proper Distance’, in Liestol, G., Morrison, A., Rasmussen, T. (eds) “Innovations”. Cambridge MA: MIT Press. [Accessed Online 19/03/2017] <https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/cce1/26dccc1b8ec28ae66818ca452f23902d64ba.pdf>

• Simple Pimple ‘“It’s not happening here. But it is happening now.” Brilliant ad campaign by Amnesty International (10 pictures)’. [Accessed Online 04/04/2017] <http://simplepimple.com/2013/10/its-not-happening-here-but-it-is-happening-now-brilliant-ad-campaign-by-amnesty-international-10-pictures/>

• Sontag, S. (2003) “Regarding the Pain of Others”. London: Penguin Books Ltd.

• Steuter, E., Wills, D. (2008) “At War with Metaphor: Media, Propaganda, and Racism in the War on Terror”. Plymouth: Lexington Books.

• The Guardian (2017) ‘The hijab ruling is a ban on Muslim women’. [Accessed Online 18/03/2017] <https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/mar/15/hijab-ruling-muslim-women-religious-identity-european-court-of-justice-resistance>

• The Telegraph (2017) ‘Venezuela death toll rises as unrest enters fourth week’. [Accessed Online 14/03/2017] <http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/04/25/venezuela-death-toll-rises-unrest-enters-fourth-week/>

• UNICEF (2011) ‘Saving children in the Horn of Africa’. [Accessed Online 06/03/2017] <https://www.unicef.org/southafrica/support_8981.html>

• USA for UNHR (2017) ‘You Made It Happen’. [Accessed Online 18/03/2017] <http://www.unrefugees.org/2016/01/ikea-brighter-lives-for-refugees-campaign-raises-33-4-million-for-renewable-energy-sources-for-refugee-families-2/>

• Vestergaard, A. (2008) ‘Humanitarian branding and the media: The case of Amnesty International’, Journal of Language and Politics, Vol. 7, №3, pp. 471–493. [Accessed Online 09/04/2017] <https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Anne_Vestergaard2/publication/233588813_Humanitarian_branding_and_the_media_The_case_of_Amnesty_International/links/565c2afb08ae4988a7bb6327.pdf>

• VICE (2017) ‘Trump hasn’t appointed anyone to keep track of released Guantanamo detainees’. [Accessed Online 27/04/2017] <https://news.vice.com/story/trump-hasnt-appointed-anyone-to-keep-track-of-released-guantanamo-detainees>

• Washington Post (2017) ‘Trump should let Syrian refugees in. But not because he feels sorry for them.’. [Accessed Online 2/04/2017] <https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2017/04/11/trump-should-let-syrian-refugees-in-but-not-because-he-feels-sorry-for-them/?utm_term=.7b77286b62ee>

• Wetherell, M., Potter, J. (1988) ‘Discourse Analysis and the identification of interpretative repertoires’, in Antaki, C. (ed) “Analysing Everyday Explanation: A Casebook of Methods”. London: SAGE Publications Ltd.

• Williams, B. J. (2015) ‘The Desert of Anatopism: War in the Age of Globalization’, American Literature, Vol. 87, №2, pp. 359–385. [Accessed Online 17/04/2017] <http://americanliterature.dukejournals.org/content/87/2/359.short>

• Zelizer, B. (2005) ‘Death in Wartime: Photographs and the “Other War” in Afghanistan’, The International Journal of International Press/Politics, Vol. 10, №3, pp. 26–55. [Accessed Online 05/04/2017] <http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1081180x05278370>