Violence, Millennium: Journal of International Studies, Volume 34, Number 3, August 2006, pp. 767-791(25) claims that sublime images are utilised by
the media to remove the spectre away from the immediate effects of war and to a higher ideal, which makes the actions of war justifiable. Debrix
explains how the
American media presents such an image and ideal in its media coverage. That when presented with an alternative message of that of American troops in
crisis, as when the images where published of American troops being brought home in multiple numbers in flag draped coffins, the war becomes not
something with a moral cause, but a reality. Seeing death becomes, for what it is: death and not the preservation of future lives as the ideal of
protecting freedom would create. In the current situation in the Middle East this is achieved for Debrix through presenting the soldier on the side
of the coalition in a position of strength and those wishing to be portrayed as the enemy in a position of weakness.
“The experience of the sublime allows the American public to achieve an aesthetic apprehension of images of violence and terror (often in warfare) that are made pleasurable not so much because they evince an immediately evident beauty, but because they require of the public to reach for ideas, not available through direct representation, with which it can make sense of and find satisfaction with what is going on in the world and what is apparently displayed in front of its eyes.” (Debrix, Pg.2)
This essay will examine a two of contemporary images and determine whether it is correct of Debrix to state that sublime images are being used to
influence the public’s attitude to the current situation in the Middle East. It could be claimed that these images are an example not of the sublime,
but of propaganda. Yet it could be also stated that perhaps all propaganda images are actually propaganda because they are sublime and it is that
that allows them to have the powerful effect they do on the public.
The case of the sublime is that there is no exact standard to apply to any images. The notion of the sublime became a key philosophical topic in the
18th century after the discovery of Longinus’s writings on the subject, and was discussed by many of the prominent philosophers of that time. Two key
notable figures who wrote on the sublime from this period are: Immanuel Kant and Edmund Burkes. It will be their writings that will be used in
examining if contemporary images of war are sublime. It will not be answered whether Kant is correct or Burke is correct in the explanation of what
the sublime is, but if these images would be considered sublime by them.
The Military campaign of shock and awe that heralded the beginning of the Iraq war began with a purpose to astound the Iraqi’s with the military might
of the coalition. However it also in the use of images from the campaign to the viewer at home: a cause of astonishment. The difference being that
is without the immediate danger faced by those directly involved.
The idea of astonishment is a pivotal role in the sublime according to Burke; for it is that which disables our minds, and when faced with such images
we are initially unable to think, beyond the image that is presented. This would differ from the view of Debrix that the images are used to transcend
to the public a higher ideal for the images purposes. As if the mind is to be filled with only the images presented to it, it is unable to hold in it
any ideas beyond that.
IMAGE 1
What is apparent in this image is contrast between the site of the burning building in the background. (An image it’s self which is a reminder of
the twin towers and the site of the silhouettes of the
dancing children in the back drop of a sunset. . It is noted that the image of the building stands not directly in front of the sun, but is the
darker element of the picture and the two are contrasted more with each other due to this. We are unable to see the children’s expressions, but by the
position of their bodies, we are given the message that despite what is going on around them. This is ultimately a new horizon for them and this is
amplified by the sunset. The children although in a situation that would seem to cause fear, appear to contradict it with their reaction.
Burke sets out conditions that make an image or scene more likely to be sublime. The use of black in particular of the silhouettes, is particularly
associated with Burke’s sublime. Black in had a particular sublime effect, in that Burke proposed that black causes in us the feeling of terror. Burke
applied this to the idea of a white boy being terrorised by a black woman. The idea of magnificence is seen in the sunset on the horizon and in the
towering building on fire behind them.
Yet whilst these images for Burke do not serve the purpose of that Debrix states of sending out a message of a higher ideal for the war, they can
though be classified as being sublime in the terms of what Burke would have classified as sublime.. The idea that they are sublime, may not serve the
purpose of allowing the public to think beyond the image to any moral justification, but that they serve a different influence by just the same virtue
they are not creating a higher ideal and any moral justification, they are also not going to be filled with any moral dissent against it either. It
is in a way stopping us looking beyond the image.
"The passion caused by the great and sublime in nature . . . is Astonishment; and astonishment is that state of the soul, in which all its motions are suspended, with some degree of horror. In this case the mind is so entirely filled with its object, that it cannot entertain any other." [Burke, A philosophical enquiry into the sublime and beautiful (1759), in Ashfiled & de Bolla, 1998. Section 25, Part 2, section1, Pg. 132)
This is created as when faced with these images that would if faced with in a real life situation cause terror, the fact that they are held in the
moment of only the image, serves a purpose to stop thinking. As anything that generates in the viewer a feeling of terror, for there to be any
engagement between the two, for Burke it must also be sublime. There has to be a detachment between the feeling of terror and the actuality of that
which terrorises occurring. Therefore the viewer is detached from reality of war.
<i>“Whatever therefore is terrible, with regard to the sight, is sublime too. Whether this cause of terror, be endued with greatness of dimensions or not; for it is impossible to look on anything as trifling, or contemptible, that may be dangerous” [Burke, in Ashfiled & de Bolla, 1998. Section 25, Part 2, section1, Pg. 133)<i>
Kant differs from Burke in that terror is not assigned the same significant and central characteristic of the sublime. The Kantian sublime places
the emphases on the Mathematical and the Dynamic sublime. The Mathematical sublime is the sublime is that concerned with ideas of infinity. The
ability to have the idea of infinity seems impossible, but in a sublime moment, we are able to grasp it. Even though, there are no boundaries to
infinity, our mind at that point is able to expand alongside infinity Kant views the human subject of each sharing the same faculties, and being cable
of reaching towards the super sensible; the super sensible is how we would be, if we did what we ought to do.
The sublime is not objective but subjective; it is to us the feeling associated with an idea we can have of something we can not know, but the
knowledge we have the capability too is gained The dynamic sublime is being faced with a power that has the complete control to annihilate you, but at
the same time you are still able to imagine it. (C3: 247-278)
The Photo below is an example of a current media image of the war in Afghanistan. This image is the type of image that Debrix mentions of the
placement of the soldier in a position of strength and the Iraqi in weakness it is an example of the Kantian sublime as. It does not fit the
requirement for inciting terror and astonishment as Burke’s states is required for the sublime as it does not create a sense of terror that astounds.
IMAGE 2
A young Afghan boy is photographed looking for support from an American soldier, who stands with finger prised on trigger. Surrounding this is the backdrop of behind the boy of rubble and destruction and behind the soldier is a very bright white light.
Aesthetics for Kant had the purpose of conceptualising moral ideas, witnessing the pain and the suffering alongside the image of duty has moral
message being: that this is what we ought to be doing., Our reason is not able to tell us why this is, it has to reach towards a feeling that is
beyond any of the concepts that reason can offer up on its own. (C3. 245)This stretching of the imagination is a feeling of the sublime for Kant. If
we are faced with an image that conflicts its own cause of protecting freedom, with an action as war is, that results in the loss of freedom What is
sublime about the idea of war images having generating feeling of sublimely is the attempt to harmonise the conflict between war and any moral
justification for war. Through the image of suffering, is against the moral law, and it would appear to be treating agents, as means to an end. The
means to the end was the upholding of the moral law. In order to protect the freedom of the will, they must become ends in themselves for the sake of
the moral law. If thought about in terms of Kant’s importance attached to acts done out of duty to the moral law. (Kant C4:398-405)The scene can be
used to convey an idea of the super sensible. That reason can not give us justification for the acts of war, but the moral law, and our ability to
reach towards it, gives it moral justification. This reaching for a higher ideal is what Debrix states is the propaganda power of sublime images of
war.
The use of the ideas of the sublime becoming combined with propaganda is not a unique perspective of the recent Iraq war. The Volkisch sublime was
that what was associated with ideas towards the purpose of art in Nazi Germany. Triumph of will (coverage of the Nuremberg rallies) and Olympia (the 1938 Munich Olympic games), by film maker
Leni Riefenstahl, convey the idea of the Volkisch sublime. Olympic participants filmed from an angle looking upwards towards the sky. Athletic
ability was an important aspect of the volkisch sublime. The idea of an Aryan race that was physically superior and gave justification for their
acts, were exemplified with the sublime portrayal of the Olympians, as reaching towards something. Akin to Kant again the purpose of the aesthetic
sublime is to transcend a moral purpose.
This does not necessarily make these images, propaganda. It can be that these types of images can not but help create the sublime feeling it does, as
the act of human war and the reaction to images of this is a natural phenomenon. Propaganda is when the sublime is synthetically created, or when
political speech is attached to something that is naturally sublime. The effect of these images is on a western audience, the standard of tastes of
those in the Middle East, will not respond in the same manner as a western public. There is a cultural aspect to the sublime when it comes to ideas of
morality, images that appear in the Middle East that show them in positions of strength will have the effect that these images have on their
counterpart.
Images that would be found to be sublime by both Burke and Kant’s standards are found to be in the media, the fact that they are sublime, and the fact
that they stir in us sentiments as they do, may be linked to the sublime, that the idea of war, is the idea of our own morality and freedom. The
idea of Kant’s, importance to acts out of duty, is an idea that is able to be used by the media to influence the public in how they view these images.
This is a more political use of the sublime, than the natural backdrop of wars landscape. If you think about just the landscape aspect of the
sublime, then any action set in them circumstances will be sublime.
Burkes sublime, must always cause terror, and whilst there aspects that are terrorising about both images, (the soldiers hand on trigger and the
bombed buildings behind the children dancing in the forefront). The Burke sublime though would have our mind cleared then. Kant’s sublime fits in
with Debrix idea of the sublime be able to have satisfaction with what they see. Kant is able to provide what this satisfaction is as the upholding of
the moral law. The Kantian sublime would the leave the mind blank and frozen in terror but fill it up with ideas of the super sensible. If
propaganda is to be viewed as sublime, those that are to be, would be more powerful following the Kantian sublime. The use of aesthetics to convey a
moral law for the act is something that can be used to become a political tool.
References
Books
Immanuel Kant: Critique of Judgment (trans. Pluhar, Hackett Publishing Co., 1987)
Immanuel Kant: Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals (ed. Mary Greggor) Cambridge, 1997.
Edmund Burke: (1759) in The Sublime: a Reader in British Eighteenth-century Aesthetic Theory in Edmund Burke, A philosophical enquiry into the origin of our ideas of the sublime and beautiful, trans. and ed. James Boulton (Oxford: Blackwell, 1987).
Journals
The Sublime Spectatorship of War: The Erasure of the Event in America’s Politics of Terror and Aesthetics of Violence, Millennium: Journal of International Studies, Volume 34, Number 3, August 2006, pp. 767-791(25
Combating the Adverse Effects of Political Sublime as a Tool of Propaganda
Look in all directions
With War comes sides, take away the boundaries and you are faced with the harsh realities, no ideal, no cause can justify what is brought before your eyes, when you remove the veil of propaganda.
Combining the two facets of conflict is one way of achieving a more complete picture. Faced with images of the American war hero, holding the hand of small Iraq child, may give the viewer a sense of respect and admiration for the soldiers cause. Contrast that same image on the alternative side, of the soldier standing next to shredded body parts of child and the message begins to sour.
This works in reverse, when the hero is placed in a position of weakness, bringing together the images, from both sides and the innocent bystanders caught in the path, brings home that the war about freedom is anything but. Freedom, is not death, freedom is the right to your life, the right to have the freedom to live it. A war that salutes freedom as its ideal is a paradoxical war.
Demonise your target and you will make any actions against them justifiable even if contravene human rights and liberties. They will use this too to carry out the same actions against its own citizens.
The presentation of news ideally should not have a political agenda, it should set forward to present facts, but we do not live in a ideal world. Whilst each of us individuals should take responsibility to be able to critically evaluate the news, and determine its validity, reality is a different situation. Work, family, life in general does not always permit the time to allow this. We should be able to depend on when we watch the news, that we do not have to then go investigate further to ascertain, whether what is reported is a true account. It is important to, to be able to trust that the report we have is not, there to bolster political policy.
One of the main factors, that is evident in this is that the line where those behind the financial backing of media outlets, and those behind governments donations meet a junction. In the US , political campaigns are driven , by the financial backing giving to candidates, and those in turns to not do so with out their own motives, and that is to see a return on what they have put into. They have the ability to be able to have the thing that crosses all boundaries and that is economic influence. If they wish to back a news station, then ultimately you will find that the said news station in question is ultimately influenced by a perception that benefits the financial backers interests. It simply sense. It not the case that it is just false reporting which can occur , but the presentation of stories influencing one perception over reality.
Fox news is a perfect example of propaganda, it is the prime example of hypocrisy, it claims fair and balanced reporting but it is anything but. A recent broadcast of an interview with the Lebanese leader, was evidently cut, the reporter asked loaded questions. Which really is quite unprofessional as it is leading the interview. It shows a lack of interest in what the man has to say. There claims for letting viewers make up their own mind, is evidently unable to happen , when they do not give them a non biased view, but to get to the interview to serve there pro Israeli agenda which in turns serves there own agenda. It then ended with technical difficulties am not saying they should be presenting a Pro Hezbollah view either , but I think they should be able to report without the blatant one dimensional view the currently do. If anything fox news would harmless if it came with a comedy warning, but for people who are only having this as the night time news they catch, it does not bode well for how there conceptions of the world develop.
I am a believer in the Rational Actor Model of thought. I do not see reactions as simply reactive to ongoing threats in the world. The key events that are used to provide for this argument , being 9/11 and then in the uk the 7/7 are too convenient a basis. It is always hypocrisy though that makes evident that the reasoning's are far more calculated than they are presented to be. Safeguarding citizens should be the prime target of a state, but are we safer? Who has lost liberty in this is us as citizens. The public will not be fooled by another home attack, too many people now have doubts over the attack. ultimately also , whether you subscribe to this or not or you think that there is a genuine threat of hatred against the west, actions are not being made to dampen any hatred. Rationally when you think, it just does not make sense what they are doing unless the goals they aim to meet are not the goals we are intended to think.
I always try to read media sources out with the Uk, and to read the perspectives of them all, i think that , though we can never say there is one reality of what is occurring , as really reality is existing on multiple levels. There are the levels for the public, where the battle of us and them and then there is the reality of the main stream media. This however though is a reality that is showing fragmentation. Access to information has debunked the ease of ability that the public could be fed one line. With the now the availability of news resources who will provide those wanting a more real view, no one state is an evil state and others good. Regimes are painted as a threat , not when they are a threat , but when perceiving them as a threat is beneficial to domestic and foreign policy . If the two can be merged then it is a double whammy. When George Bush said " you are either with us or against us" he made salient to the US public , that there is an us and them, making salient makes it more easy to manipulate fears of what we do not know. That is why it is important to make sure that when they you hear a sound bite of what Iran has said, or even if you listen to what i just said that you go read it in perspective. Who reported that said , What did they not say is as important as what they do say at times. I hear comments about Iran's questions over the holocaust and isolated they are painted as Nazis, but when read in full script a different perspective emerged. Who speaks is extremely important. Germany has been more vocal about Iran, this shortly after President Bushs' visit to Germany and if any one could criticise Iran for anything said against Israel , then Germany i think due to the history are a candidate for that. It comes more valid than if America had said, and i think that has to be noted. i ask myself why Germany are being what i find more vocal about Iran.
All governments give justifications for their actions, but that is what they are; just justifications and if the true justification is one that that will not be given approval then they will not use it. Would the public support , invasion of Iraq if they said that it was to gain a foothold in the middle east ( though the shoe is not fitting as nice as they would expect) I do not know exactly what is happening , who can really claim to, all i can claim is that , we have to look at all the levels, even further than i have stated, we have to look at how diplomatically relations alter, Iraq was not always the enemy with Saddam, he was the enemy when it met a goal. the current situation that is happening in the middle east should be applied with same rational thought. it makes no sense the actions to support the actions of Israel, unless the long term goals , are not what they claim them to be of peace and stability. Generations of children are going to grow up with more hatred of Israel and any chance of a sustainable peace will not be met.
Rationality however is against a powerful tool of fear via the sublime, however if we focus humanities creativity into creating that what is is sublime to transfer the focus, it will aid in banishing that fear. Focus on the positivity and be taken away by that , which moves us, the sublime in nature and our internal human sublime. One that will override their attempts to apply a distorted reality on us. Look at the Sky, stare at a mountain, paint a rainbow. Do not let fear in the grand spectacle of propaganda , in this global age overwhelm .