You are on page 1of 23

Photography & Culture

Volume 6—Issue 1 March 2013 pp. 41–64

“The Brownies in Palestina”: Politicizing Geographies in Family Photographs1
Gil Pasternak
This article is concerned with the production of domestic familial knowledge in connection to the modern Israeli state’s geographical terrain. Considering the period stretching from the establishment of the Israeli state in 1948 to the present day, it focuses on a case study of a family album of pictures portraying Israeli subjects in a landscape that is concurrently perceived as the home of the Palestinian as well as the Jewish-Israeli peoples. By attending to Palestinian and Israeli historical accounts that investigate the Israeli state’s ideological administration of landscape, alongside the theorization of vernacular photography and the methodologies often used to unpack such imagery, I demonstrate how landscape–family photographs may confront the Zionist “Geographical Imagination” and the physical landscape the Zionist project designed and imposed upon the “Israeli” land. Such photographs, I argue, extend and alter existing Zionist representational regimes, challenging formal Israeli historiography. While this article centers on the production of landscape–family photographs within the Israeli state, it intends to offer an insight into the impact both the commercialization and technological simplification of the photographic medium had on the use of photography in cultural politics. I suggest that photography in this context does much more than simply serve the distribution of power by state officials. In the vernacular, I argue, photography must be read as a potentially subversive apparatus capable of undermining formal doctrines and canonical histories.

Reprints available directly from the publishers Photocopying permitted by licence only © Bloomsbury Publishing Plc 2013

Keywords: Israeli historiography/ideology, family photographs and state politics, vernacular photography, landscaping, geographical imagination/imaginative geographies.
A group of elderly people stands in front of the iconic defiant lion of Tel Hai (Figure 1). They appear in a black-and-white photograph of half-postcard size, taken sometime in the 1970s while touring the
Photography & Culture  Volume 6  Issue 1  March 2013, pp. 41–64

42  “The Brownies in Palestina”

Gil Pasternak

Fig 1 Esther Pasternak, 1970s. Esther Pasternak collection of family photographs, 1946–99. Copyright © Gil Pasternak. Photography & Culture  Volume 6  Issue 1  March 2013, pp. 41–64

When I was a child. sometimes alone. It is often said that these were the last words imparted by Joseph Trumpeldor—commander of the battle. as well as with other people and sights that were not part of my own immediate environment. On the other hand. Trumpeldor’s words in the middle. The now mythologized battle of Tel Hai ended at least fifty years before Esther and her companions would stand by the monument to have their photograph taken. one of its fallen. Esther and I used to spend some time looking through the collection of family photographs she kept by her bed in a red plastic case. with foreign countries and distant cities. The lower part of the monument lists their names. 41–64 . and the emblematic lion at the top. and an icon of socialist Zionism. The photograph of Esther in Tel Hai is one of a kind in my collection of family photographs showing the generation of my grandparents. Esther Pasternak. Some wear sunglasses. It denotes a national commemorative site while also being a tourist landmark. fell to Arab village militias in the settlement of Tel Hai in 1920 while defending their homes and community. It was through this collection of family photographs that I first became familiar with the faces of late family members and family friends. As a tourist site it offers vacationers an opportunity to partake in a leisure activity. The vast majority of their private photographic collections show them in arbitrary urban spaces in Germany and in European cafés and apartments. Eliciting some embellished anecdotes about the battle of Tel Hai— Trumpeldor’s last words. the historical narrative associated with the statue has been used to attract internal and external tourists to this part of the country. They impart a patriotic message to those who would prefer to recognize this part of the country as theirs. In modern Israel. the words engraved on the memorial address Hebrew speakers. Since the establishment of the state of Israel in 1948. as the Israeli version of the story goes. Immediately above them. and his words the epitome of Jewish-Israeli patriotism (Zerubavel 1995). the settlers’ heroism. The men appear in the top row. It may seem to propagate and embrace socialist Zionist ideology: the alliance that the group forms in front of the national symbol generates the impression that Photography & Culture  Volume 6  Issue 1  March 2013. as well as a full view of the memorial. My grandparents were all Eastern European Jewish immigrants who left the Continent for Israel shortly after the 1939–45 war. shown in the bottom line. On the one hand. and the eventual triumph of their political beliefs—the site facilitates the consumption of a simplified storyline which romanticizes the life and death of the socialist Zionist pioneers. this visual information triggers conflicting notions. Trumpeldor has become an exemplar of local heroism. pp. Most of the figures smile. fourth from the right. and who would ideally annex the historical mythic figure of Trumpeldor to their society. The frame is neatly composed to include all of them. Although the pioneers lost the battle. another engraved Hebrew inscription reads “tov lamut be’ad artzenu” (It is good to die for our country). The defiant lion is a tombstone monument erected in 1932 to commemorate a group of eight Jewish pioneer settlers who. Some of the women hold elegant bags. the story of the Tel Hai battle has been perpetuated within the newly emerging Israeli society as a mythic narrative of bravery. Given the competing significances of the defiant lion. at other times with family members and friends. They speak to those who consider themselves part of a wider national community. the defiant lion has become a marker of a contested environment. Directing their gaze at the camera. It is the only photograph that features one of these four émigrés against an overdetermined Israeli national symbol—the defiant lion of Tel Hai. and which animates the geographical surroundings.Gil Pasternak “The Brownies in Palestina”  43 northern part of modern Israel. One of them is my late maternal grandmother. Esther and the others appear to feel comfortable next to the monument.

First manufactured and sold in 1900. they may generate surplus knowledge about the sociocultural and ideological domain within which they are produced. the information communicated through landscape– family photographs in particular is often disputable and uncertain. and of snapshot photography in particular. The role landscape and family photographs play in occidental societies. historical. fantasy. as if they were to reiterate that “It is good to die for our country. against particular landscapes. has been greatly informed by state politics and capitalist ideologies. one has to remember that historically. its involvement in politics. 41–64 . Politics. Preserving (and imagining) cultural. and instead propagated settlement. and in negotiations of power relations. in landscaping. in representing and shaping Otherness in compliance with European imagination. and human landscape was a role officially assigned to the medium of photography when its invention was reported to the people of France by François Arago. “Before the snapshot. their function and behavior in the broader social context may defy and overthrow. which rejected selfindulgence. In depicting the subjects partaking in a leisure activity. a pastime that required technical skill and costly equipment” (2007: 1). Thereby. rather than reflect. Their casual appearance by a landmark associates them with the context of tourism. enticing individuals to travel with cameras and participate in the depiction of landscapes. Methodologies Richard Chalfen argues that: “Access to cameras has provided us with a modern expressive form that promotes the communication of information about ourselves to ourselves and future generations” (Chalfen 1987: 4). one of the first easy-to-operate cameras for amateurs. defense. At the turn of the twentieth century. To fully grasp the operation of the photographic apparatus in family life. Not everyone would affirm that it is good to die for a country. Somewhat inadvertently. This resulted in photography’s widespread participation in European colonialism.44  “The Brownies in Palestina” Gil Pasternak each one of them would encourage human sacrifice in favor of national ends.” Conversely. and labor as a worthy way of life. On face value. Family Photographs: Histories. Kodak thus invoked the nuclear family to partake in the production of geographical knowledge within the domestic sphere (Olivier 2007). the figures’ smiles signify a rehearsal of vernacular photographic conventions. the meanings their makers or collectors may have anticipated. it communicates the mere encounter between the subjects it depicts and the visited site. the image also discharges the subjects of the pioneers’ socialist moral sensibilities. it was the invention of the one-dollar Brownie camera that enabled the practice of family photography and the production of family photographs in the way that one is familiar with today. Yet. the Brownie. As Marc Olivier notes. and their contingent relatedness in time and space.” This photograph alone cannot attest to its intended meaning or significance. brought about the notion of the democratization of photography. toning down the defiant lion’s national and ideological symbolic value. and the meanings one might associate with the information they mediate. And not everyone would identify “our” with “mine. Photography & Culture  Volume 6  Issue 1  March 2013. Their blasé performance mitigates the severity of the monument. It is true that not everyone would feel comfortable posing next to such a monument for a photograph. Taken away from home. photography was largely a gentlemen’s hobby. and nullifying the figures’ association with sociocultural commemorative rites. It allowed virtually anyone to take photographs regardless of whether or not they possessed any photographic expertise. the Kodak company further cemented this role. the information such photographs communicate may often exceed that intended. and desire. pp. in the Chamber of Deputies in 1839 (Sekula 1981).

tell their own story. it “redefined not only who could take photographs. Haldrup and Larsen 2003. methodological individualism is equally relevant to the development of a rigorous understanding of family photography. as Olivier explains. therefore. As objects of exchange. they also limit the scope of research into family photography. Another commonly overlooked aspect in studies of family photography is the implication of taking pictures within landscapes of conflict by families for whom the terrain simultaneously signifies “home” as well as a politically charged foreign geography. images that encompass such conflicting notions. photographs embark on a journey of their own. it is a difficult. However. women. In order to investigate. Once printed. pp. photographs may exist for much longer than the subjects and sites they show. the dissemination of the Brownie camera did more than just bring snapshot photography to the masses. But. Complementing the functionalist methodology. Some of the leading literature about the relationship between geography and the practice of landscape–family photography is readily available in studies within Cultural and Human Geography (for examples. it inspired consumers to give expression to “invisible lives. have both been carried into the present day (Olivier 2007). Jacobs 1981. Bourdieu 1990. the significance of family photographs as signs. The majority of this discourse. however. Selwyn 1996. is sure to alter. and the family photograph as a tuneful and final product. 2010). such viewers might read new meanings into the images. it does not attend to the roles family photographs play within the familial environment. 41–64 . or to study what motivations lead them to capture such photographs in the first place (Csikszentmihaly and Rochberg-Halton 1981. and the alleged democratic ideology it promoted. even when remaining in the hands of new generations of the family they depict. coupled with the function they serve. After all. methodological individualism. Finally.3 The functionalist approach’s maxim presupposes that a union of interests and solidarity is the normal condition prevailing in society. as material objects.”2 While the Brownie camera is no longer in use. does not consider what forms of familial and geographical knowledge such photographs produce or might generate within the family unit. Halle 1993. By managing to generate anxiety about undocumented lives. the functionalist approach’s tautology preempts and thereby further cements cohesion as the family photograph’s ultimate political function. one liberated from given societal structures and institutions of power. children. see Urry 1992. and feminism. but rather. solely to the gesture of their production. and those who did not enjoy high social and economic status could now express themselves through photography. Larsen 2005). and their legibility to become obscure. 1998. The Brownie was branded as a democratic means of communication. As a consequence. in particular. This stance. their role and meaning is destined to change. Rose 2003. Such studies are necessary as they shed some light on various communicative customs and their visual manifestations in folk culture. and reflect their personal worldviews. the desires it generated. maybe even an impossible task. Thus. Chalfen 1987. Although numerous authors have intended to explore what families actually do with the photographs they take. It offers an insight into subjective perceptions Photography & Culture  Volume 6  Issue 1  March 2013. it appears necessary to complicate the currently dominant research methodologies used in studies of family photographs: functionalism. family photographs may be sent to other relatives or interested parties who may not necessarily use them as their makers intended. but for what purpose” (Olivier 2007: 1–2).Gil Pasternak “The Brownies in Palestina”  45 Thanks to the Brownie. Those who were not among the tourists might not be capable of identifying the depicted scenes and locations. Due in large part to an extensive advertisement campaign. tends to consider the practice of family photography as a harmonious evolutionary tradition.

visual sites or modes of display where representational or contextual rupture occurs. Yet. Spence and Holland 1991.” That is. feminist inquiry into domestic imagery often utilizes the notion of conflict as a methodology (Walkerdine 1990. and associating family photography with memory work. “In the psyche. the application of methodological individualism might limit access to other. for a lost ‘home’ grounds the work of memory Photography & Culture  Volume 6  Issue 1  March 2013. and Geoffrey Batchen (2004). Julia Hirsch (1981). less obvious sociocultural and political outcomes generated through the various activities associated with family photography. it might draw one’s attention away from the functions of the family photograph as an object of exchange. albeit not exclusively. to functionalist methodology. Titus 1976. It extracts data and information from those who practice and view family photography within the familial sphere. Richard Chalfen (1987). conventions. Yet. and the social group into a family unit. Hirsch 1981. Their underpinning hypothesis suggests that family photographs do not reflect a notion of home or family. Kuhn argues that “memory texts”—family photographs included—tend to lead to a state of sociocultural solidarity. exchanging. at times also subversive readings of difference in class. This can be exemplified by some of the studies carried out by. for instance. perhaps due in particular to the relatively personal characteristic of family photography’s apparatus. social manners. in a section within the concluding chapter of her book Family Secrets (2002: 152–53). This may lead one to acquire an understanding of the interpretations individual subjects offer once asked to explain their intentions in producing. Rose 2003).” she argues. Perhaps as a consequence of the feminist scholars’ acceptance of the notion of cohesion while studying social conflict. Therefore. “the drive that powers acts of remembering would seem to exert a specific kind of pull: the desire. Yet the main complexity embedded in this research tradition is one and the same as its promise. their research into family photographs does not seem to attend to moments of “representational failure. However. functionalism and methodological individualism often overlap in more semi-/empirical explorations. Chalfen 1987. Yet their views and analytical positions could be said to reflect no more than hindsight explanations of such activities. which in fact allows one to reconsider the family photograph as an open channel through which innovative. as well as from its unforeseen purpose as a phenomenological object. and norms. in relying primarily on psychoanalytical theories. informed by the interviewees’ own subjective set of desires and critical capacities. Conversely. subject positioning. Kuhn 1995. A similar suggestion is voiced by Annette Kuhn. primarily stemming from the functionalist approach. and Deborah Chambers (2003)—tend to adhere. Gillian Rose (2003. Halle 1993. Such studies consider family photographs as indicators of conflicting class and gender positions. 41–64 . Slater 1995. and looking at family photographs. Marianne Hirsch (1997). Phillip Stokes (1992). Bourdieu 1990. In line with the work of others in the broader field (for example. Pierre Bourdieu (1990). feminist studies have mainly resulted in some theoretical suggestions and critical accounts that demonstrate how the family photograph contributes to establishing social integration through the perpetuation of visual representations of gender roles. pp. In addition. the majority of feminist discussions of family photographs also appear to agree with the theory of social integration and cohesion. Stokes 1992.46  “The Brownies in Palestina” Gil Pasternak of this practice’s social role through microsociological studies investigating the significance individuals assign to the family photograph. Some theorizations of family photography— such as those written by Susan Sontag (1979). culture. politics. but that they help to transform the psychic perception of the house into a home. often only partly conscious. 2010). and gender might emerge and reaffirm themselves in distinct terms. Cronin 1998).

even for conflict. and. In her book Family Photographs. in her view. in discussing this contested geographical region and the way it is represented and materialized through family photographs. but also as an informative image and object existing in. Kuhn later suggests that. wholeness” (2002: 167). In fact. pp. she clarifies that family photographs obscure various social and cultural. she does not link the family photograph to the physical but rather to the psychic domestic environment.4 Already in 1981. as well as of a feeling of unity. refuge and emigration. reunion. Therefore she also asserts that “Remembering can be the occasion for cultural difference. as well as for solidarity” (Kuhn 2002: 168). always in flux and always potentially in contradiction with one another” (2002: 168). as well as of the historical formation and re-formation of “Israeli landscape. then on the one hand. However. For this reason.” Thinking Landscapes From the late 1980s. and constantly reshaping the present understanding of. tensions and existential instability. Hirsch delineates the historical emergence of family photography (1981: 15–46). and potential properties. 41–64 . one must first be equipped with a thorough understanding of the culturally-coded realm of landscape. whether these are credible or fabricated. indeed. And because. I would like to suggest one encounters the family photograph as a post-memory. the physical conditions it both portrays and materializes. Taking particular issue with the production of familial geographical knowledge within the socially and politically contested environment of modern Israel. the psychic domestic sphere is informed and dominated by “the historical imagination of nationhood” (Kuhn 2002: 169). on the other. or in the family image itself. Historically and politically. Rather. But. Allowing the political conditions that dominate the landscapes represented in the family photographs in question to determine the circumstances under which such images are scrutinized does not suggest family photographs are products consciously made with the intention of resisting political powers. contingencies. political and personal frustrations. a new understanding of landscape emerged in the field of cultural geography. as well as being two reciprocal conditions of the family photograph. applying such a critical methodological approach to family photographs rules out the possibility of defining their purpose or function as something embedded and self-contained within the practice of family photography. treating and discussing landscape as Photography & Culture  Volume 6  Issue 1  March 2013. it makes it possible to observe the family photograph’s multiple functions. I will focus on family pictures showing Israeli subjects captured in a landscape that is concurrently perceived as representing the Palestinian as well as the Jewish-Israeli peoples. Julia Hirsch. whose work embraces the notion of social cohesion. Accordingly.Gil Pasternak “The Brownies in Palestina”  47 as a quest for union. “Public memory may be comprised of a melange of smaller collective memory-stories. The experience of the physical environment and that of psychic life may be perceived as interlinked. not purely as something of the past. the family photograph seems doomed to being read as a symbol of psychic submission to social norms. drew some attention to what she named “the latent hypocrisy of [photography]” (42). it is above all an indicator of prevailing conflicts between social norms. of the angst of exclusion informed by physical rather than exclusively psychic circumstances. it is simultaneously a space of succor and displacement. the condition of conflict has prevailed in Israeli societies and within the geographical terrain of the Israeli state since 1948. Tracing back its informing representational conventions. Although Kuhn attends to the potential of the family photograph to undermine the notion of cohesion. it appears logical to presume that if the family photograph is often theoretically understood as an object propagating integration.

T. or landscaping—that would indicate the formation of a terrain by looking at geographical segments either directly or through forms of mediation. sustained. Landscape here is conceived of as a medium that imparts values. landscape must be understood as a system of authored signs working to narrate the terrain in which they are found. imbuing the geographical terrain with a power to serve the ideologies of a different authority. For him. William J. landscape is a form of “dreamwork” (1994: 10). Prior to the late 1980s. would in fact only reconstruct the landscape and its meaning anew. The new understanding of the term. and evolving continuingly and continually.7 Challenging this perspective. It is a mental construction. they may be inculcating their readers with a set of notions about how society is organized. to read it in a way that may compete with. and organization. structure. A close reading of Duncan and Duncan’s theoretical work suggests landscape as a demonstration of political power produced by dominant elites in line with one’s own preferred ideological narratives about social status. and perpetuated by dominant discourses. writing and communicating meanings in a particular language. 41–64 . A capacity to engage with and read the signs used along the geographical terrain renders landscapes legible. Thus. let alone as a natural phenomenon. a by-product of cultural practices where culture was thought to have agency. a shifting non-static entity. Following Marxist methodologies. whereas the perception of landscape as text suggests landscape as an unstable cultural product—a construct open to interpretation rather than a set of neutral natural features—it perceives landscape to be a result of intentional yet naive organic processes rather than of manipulative practices driven by a will for possession and domination. suggests landscape is a product of intentional activities carried out to determine geographical features and meaning (Cosgrove and Jackson 1987. and Duncan and Duncan. reproduced. Landscape was thought of as a blank sheet to be overprinted with traces of human activity. Accordingly. whether these are individuals or groups. however. and the readers may be largely unaware of this” (Duncan and Duncan 1988: 123). capable of cementing suppositions about social function: when landscapes are “read ‘inattentively’ at a practical or non-discursive level. in 1988 James Duncan and Nancy Duncan published their “(Re)reading the Landscape. landscape needs to be considered as a linguistic experience. Going beyond the suppositions advanced by Cosgrove and Daniels. allowing the equipped viewer to absorb the information imparted by the landscape’s designer while depriving the less privileged viewer access to its intended meaning.6 This re-theorization of landscape as text began to prompt thinking of landscape as a cultural process rather than as a cultural outcome. Mitchell wishes to redefine “landscape” as a verb—to landscape. however. The narratives that landscapes present are predetermined by their principal makers or authors. pp. Thus. Yet. exposing the fabricating mechanism of landscape evokes alternative readings of the same geographical terrain.48  “The Brownies in Palestina” Gil Pasternak text. Kong 1997). Duncan and Duncan perceive landscapes as ideological texts organized to embody power and authority and working to this effect in conjunction with other forms of representation. Such a disclosure.5 The collaborative work of Denis Cosgrove and Stephen Daniels (1988) is an exemplar of this approach. Those who cannot read the signs used are bound to bestow different meanings upon the very same landscape.” an article now considered a classic work in the field of cultural geography. According to their research. Photography & Culture  Volume 6  Issue 1  March 2013. Mitchell offers a phenomenological theorization in which he seeks to consider landscape as an inter-text embodying a multiplicity of authorities and meanings (1994). made. shaped. or even override its projected significance (Jackson 1989). the predominant approach toward landscape had been derived by the theories of Carl Sauer and the Berkeley school of geographers.

41–64 . Having searched the visible landscape for residues that might echo their collective imagination. pp. historical memory. Its constituting elements. cactus bushes. is the evolutionary consequence of a mix between geography. the geographical terrain of the modern state of Israel constitutes a prime example of the interplay between the semiotic. It is therefore also a set of representational conventions that render unfamiliar topographies legible to the occidental eye. Landscape for Said is a conventional practice involving the introduction of geographical studies and explorations in the form of Western imperialist intellectual traditions that reproduce visionary knowledge. at the end of the nineteenth century Zionist pioneers brought with them from the diaspora the desire to reclaim the landscape of their longed-for. they could not possibly experience the landscape intimately. the land was occupied by non-Jewish people. finding a solution for the conflict between the two peoples is highly complex. and other indications of their previous inhabitants. are “overlapping memories. According to Benvenisti (2002). Some of these stand untouched. Re/producing Geographical Knowledge in the Domestic Sphere A photograph captured in March 1971 during my parents’ honeymoon features Dorit Pasternak.Gil Pasternak “The Brownies in Palestina”  49 Mitchell’s consideration of landscape is reminiscent of Edward Said’s discussion of orientalism. where Said seeks to make a claim for redefining the latter term as a geography of the imagination (Said 1978). Yet. narratives and physical structures” (2000: 182). abandoned olive groves. turned to archaeological excavations that gradually exposed the past sites of the ancient homeland. standing alongside a memorial for Moshe Levinger and Arye Steinlauff (Figure 2). others are hidden among thick plantations of forests “planted apparently after the houses were leveled in the early years of the Israeli state” (Falah 1996: 271).9 The memorial indicates the Hebrew Photography & Culture  Volume 6  Issue 1  March 2013. creating the country’s landscape anew. Its alteration had rendered it a collective landscape of a nation. Upon their arrival in the region. Levinger and Steinlauff were two Israeli road workers who were shot dead by a group of Palestinian militants while paving the road to the Dead Sea in 1951. some sites of past villages still contain rubble. dominating the terrain and having the capacity to preserve or remodel its features. a cultural struggle over territory continues. lost homeland. as Ghazi Falah (1996) reveals in an article on the cultural landscape of Palestine.8 The second generation of these immigrants. they faced a different reality. By the time a third generation was born. Such locations turn this landscape into a site for Israeli amnesia. Marxist and phenomenological approaches to the notion of landscape as discussed above. Edward Said argues that the conflict over the land of this region. whereby the strange comes to resemble something recognizable through the making of the nonEuropean world into a consumable spectacle. For the same reason. and the location of this nation’s identity. unoccupied territory. its landscapes did not live up to the biblical primordial images that appeared in the pioneers’ dreams. according to Said. Even though at present the state of Israel constitutes the sovereign power that dictates rules. my mother. where some aspects of a non-heroic JewishIsraeli history are hidden or camouflaged. Although popular Zionist historiography often presented the Promised Land as a deserted. In the context of this article. they worked to alter its physical features and conceal threatening scenes. and “an arresting form of invention” (2000: 183). Benvenisti explains (2002). and its perception as a home and a homeland for both Palestinians and Israelis. Geographer Meron Benvenisti’s thorough treatise on the history of the landscape and landscaping of modern Israel demonstrates how particular political interactions with the land have given birth to an array of both authoritative as well as phantasmatic landscapes (2002).

a short inscription reads: “galed chalutzim mefalsei ha’derech le’yam ha’melach she’lo zachu le’siyum” (A monument for the pioneers who had started paving the way to the Dead Sea but were not fortunate to complete it). its photographic representation is capable of mediating the scene in association with national ideology. The fragmented historical narrative of the 1951 incident and my mother’s temporal attendance to its commemorative site are united in this image. paralleling it with the full length of her body. pp. date of the workers’ death alongside their names. They enable the nuclear family to link itself to the broader social realm surrounding it. According to Deborah Chambers (2003). landscape–family photographs work to affiliate members of the family with particular national symbols and locations. forming and enacting new conditions for their apprehension. In this regard. The photographic unification between the figure and the memorial forms a continuation to the tragic narrative commemorated by the stonework. It may appear to proclaim that the two road workers’ death was not in vain—they had lost their lives. Dorit and Ephraim Pasternak’s collection of honeymoon photographs. Copyright © Gil Pasternak. Jens Jäger (2003) argues that when a depicted landscape is charged with conspicuous national symbols. as well as providing a way to inform society of the participation of the family in social life. 41–64 . and perhaps even more so when these take the form of memorials and monuments. Above these. Dorit complements the main vertical memorial stone. 1971.50  “The Brownies in Palestina” Gil Pasternak Fig 2 Dorit Pasternak. but granted liberty to the future generations of Israelis. Dorit’s family Photography & Culture  Volume 6  Issue 1  March 2013. and in line with Susan Sontag (1979: 8–9).

to those people who can comprehend the inscription’s meaning and in one way or another identify themselves with the dead. Chalfen 1987. Yet. Thus. Mentioning family albums with reference to these two insights suggests that landscape–family photographs participate in the cultural struggle over territory discussed by Said (2000). However. belongs to Hebrew-speakers. some of the state’s leaders claimed to have fulfilled this imperative. Rose 2003). the socialist Zionists—then in power—called upon the Jewish settlers to work the land. as the latter does not complement an idealistic romantic narrative. a violent death in the background. this image connotes the amorous union of two people. as is Esther’s group portrait (Figure 1). Any other narratives that may emerge from the photographic image. they identify the 1839 invention of photography as one that brought about a dramatic turn in human engagement with the world. viewed in the context of the family album. we imagine: we ‘picture place’ ” (2003: 1). Hence Schwartz and Ryan advance two core assertions. Secondly. also operates as its reconstruction. emerged during her honeymoon trip.Gil Pasternak “The Brownies in Palestina”  51 photograph evokes a sense of affiliation between the geographical terrain and Israeli-Jewish state ideology. Now the landscape created by the image is distinctively different from the one in which it was made. continue to influence our notions of space and place. Firstly. It suggests that the land surrounding the monument. it remains particularly through photographs that “we see. they explain. that the context of the visual familial narrative presented to them is what stimulates their interest. In the years leading to the establishment of the Israeli state. as depicted in the image in question. Jacobs 1981. which stretches as far as the eye can see. Considering geographical knowledge to be a blended composition of geographical landscapes mediated through visual and textual images. it could be argued. pp. Thus. The association between Dorit and the memorial. “from the pages of family albums to the holdings of national archives.10 Inasmuch as photographs can directly accumulate geographical knowledge. to have “made the desert bloom. The participation of social photographic practices in landscaping processes is indirectly explored by Joan Schwartz and James Ryan (2003). landscape and identity. are secondary. they stress that photographic images of geographies. impinges upon the sterility of the site and the coherence of its ideological message.” which they describe as the mechanism that visually informs the creation of mental images of distant places and peoples. Dorit’s honeymoon photograph is conservative. This suggests that family photographs’ viewers always already inhabit an informed subject position. Later. presenting it as conclusive. history and memory” (2003: 5). as it is about national commemoration and the possibility of a new beginning. and form a vehicle for its dissemination. Halle 1993. However. as a context. we remember.”11 Photography & Culture  Volume 6  Issue 1  March 2013. also draws attention to the memorial and the visited site. It triggers two separate narratives: a romantic story in the foreground. Photographic mediation of the geographical. The result. the photograph introduces the depicted geographical region as the property of a particular community. it is now conventionally proclaimed that they are in fact key active participants in the making of geographical knowledge. they remind their readers that even nowadays. In featuring the Hebrew wording inscribed on the memorial. as they are capable of feeding viewers’ imaginations with selective information about places. the honeymoon trip. it is also potentially subversive. it is also argued that family members and their friends form the main group of family photographs’ viewers (Csikszentmihaly and Rochberg-Halton 1981. 41–64 . Bourdieu 1990. Schwartz and Ryan argue that the alleged realistic properties of the medium have made it a powerful ally of the “Geographical Imagination. if at all considered.

That is. in family photographs actual landscapes become casual through their photographic replication. If subjects against painted landscapes had to imagine their relationship to the background. and its context. pp. it also serves as an indication of intentionality. turning the visited site into a mere signpost—a marker on the itinerary of the honeymoon trip. the scene mediated by Dorit’s family photograph denotes this terrain as abandoned.52  “The Brownies in Palestina” Gil Pasternak The environment depicted in the photograph may belong to the Jewish state. the landscape surrounding them. they are capable of shaping each other’s identity not only historically but also ontologically. for example. This recorded ephemeral encounter of the familiar figure with the inanimate surrounding has the capacity to concurrently familiarize and de-familiarize the viewer with the depicted environment. allowing the sitter—a person familiar to the viewer—to stand out as the ephemeral element within the photographic image. for if both the subject and the background appear authentic. Steve Edwards. they do not posses the former’s symbolic value. forming a body of knowledge that differs from dominant Zionist narratives as well as from the cultural significance of the site. It is those already theatrical properties of the background that trigger the spectator’s interest in its symbolic value. in their realities. The juxtaposition of subject and background appears to have worked to classify sitters according to social types. 41–64 . Yet. Edwards encourages readers to perceive backdrops as the sitters’ fantasy. Dorit’s photograph fails to reproduce and impart the exact meaning commonly associated with this landscape. family photographs narrate the group as directly involved in. as representational spaces with which sitters wish to associate themselves mainly because. “making sure that each subject received only one identity” (2006: 251). In addition. the materiality of the album. it could be suggested that whereas the painted background gains prominence by alienating the sitter from a nonrepresentational space. thus imbuing the background with other significance. and simultaneously concealing the ideological space of the studio. and the memorial may be read as a reminder of the Zionist project. Here the background functioned to denote distinctive social environments. this image is also subversive in the sense that the familial figure. Following the logic of Walter Benjamin’s historicization of photography (Benjamin 1985). and related to. direct the viewer away from the ideological message of the monument. For these reasons. historically or as experienced in the location itself. Landscaping the Family (Anew) I would like to suggest an understanding of the photographic relationship between sitters and landscapes in comparison with sitters against artificial backgrounds in studio photography. Such a disruption appears in three early childhood photographs featuring my brother Seffi and myself along with military hardware scattered Photography & Culture  Volume 6  Issue 1  March 2013. when positioned against actual landscapes. it recodes and recreates this landscape. It replicates the memorial’s fixed position within that environment. establishing a coherent illusionistic space. other than the memorial itself. This image emancipates the monument of national aura through dissociating the structure from the physical experience of the geographical environment. This further complicates the reality of the photographic. instilling in the viewer altering visions of conflicting political and social realities. and thereby in the possible affinity of the painted background with the sitter. Yet. explains how in the early days of photography a variety of diverse painted backgrounds enabled studio photographers to create portraits that articulated social divisions of labor. and thereby turns it into one of such casual backdrops that thrust the family member to the fore. while it could be argued that the two-dimensional painted background draws much of the viewer’s attention precisely due to its visible fabricated qualities. Instead.

the three photographs solidify their status as cultural memories. Through the children’s engagement with the hardware and the photographic record of this meeting.12 In one photograph we allegedly celebrate the glorious victories of Israel in both the 1956 campaign in Sinai and the Six Day War of June 1967 (Figure 3). The images seem to speculate on who the children will become. Yet they fail to narrate a coherent link between the children and the memorials. When seen together with the emblematic Syrian tank of Kibbutz Degania. 1971–89. the pictures operate to describe the children’s inadvertent imbibing of ideology. their delicate bodily state. Instead. we apparently mock the defeat of the Syrian armored corps in the 1948 battle over the Golan Heights and the bridges of the Jordan River (Figure 4). While intending to commemorate Fig 3 Seffi and Gil Pasternak. The three photographs subvert the fantasy of Israeli landscape as something neutral and coherent. and instead making the involvement of ideology in its fabrication more noticeable. when returning the gaze of the camera from the left wing of a fighter plane. appearing unaware of the military hardware’s significance. Photography & Culture  Volume 6  Issue 1  March 2013. not what they are at the photographic moment. interrupting the political appreciation of cultural memory as an organic raw product. objectified by the camera. metallic appearance emphasize the children’s fragility. and of the impression their performance might make on others. 1980s. At best.Gil Pasternak “The Brownies in Palestina”  53 throughout the Israeli landscape. Incorporating these memorials into the family album. they are dwarfed by the military hardware. The scale of the hardware and its hard. Instead. Assuming a legible pose would have implied their consciousness of the photographic apparatus as a whole. but they do not strike a pose. In all three photographs the sitters attend to the camera. The Pasternaks’ family album. they perform a discrepancy between the sitters and the landscape. “evidently” we are paying tribute to the pioneering pilots of the Israeli air force (Figure 5). pp. they are deprived of subjective agency. It is due to this inconsistency that in fact the photographs fail to convince of the children’s identification with Israeli state ideology as represented by the memorials. Copyright © Gil Pasternak. 41–64 . literally as well as ideologically. Finally. the photographs record and narrate the process of the children’s familiarization with the ideologically constructed Israeli political sphere. now serving as monuments to commemorate historical battles and the Israeli fallen.

41–64 . The Pasternaks’ family album. Copyright © Gil Pasternak. Photography & Culture  Volume 6  Issue 1  March 2013. elaborating and complicating the “Geographical Imagination.” Put differently. they are reminders that ordinary people.54  “The Brownies in Palestina” Gil Pasternak Fig 4 Seffi and Gil Pasternak. the involvement of the family in landscaping as captured by these three pictures does not allow a smooth imposition of state ideology. and the practice of everyday life all have bearing on the organization of landscape. Instead. their involvement with objects. 1971–89. 1971–89. The Pasternaks’ family album. Israeli heroism and victorious historical moments. pp. Subjective reality and state ideology in the shape of formal imagination fail to merge here. producing family photographs in a landscape does not just Fig 5 Seffi and Gil Pasternak. 1980s. 1980s. Copyright © Gil Pasternak. the memorials violate the perceived fragility and innocence of the children.

as dominion over the Old City of Jerusalem and its sacred places has been a matter of public. and international dispute since the state of Israel captured the city from Jordan in the war of 1967 (Bregman 2003. The mechanical operation Fig 6 Untitled. Attending to the camera and waiting to be photographed commonly results in a photographic category of portraiture that Thierry de Duve names as “time exposure” (1978). however. The sitters appear comfortable. de Duve suggests time exposures are images created when the subject of the photograph ceases to act in space autonomously. against a view of the Old City of Jerusalem (Figure 6). 41–64 . Pappé 2006: 183–219). 1980s. at ease within the environment and with the photographic gaze pointed at them. If snapshots are images depicting a moment from the past captured and separated from the flux of time. and address the camera as part of the conditioned ritual of the practice of family photography. 1971–89. The intrinsic lack of formality and authoritative agency in family photographs maintains their subversive potential in the political context. This photograph complicates the relationship between the sitters and the geography it features.Gil Pasternak “The Brownies in Palestina”  55 subject them to the scenery depicted in the background. Photography & Culture  Volume 6  Issue 1  March 2013. The Pasternaks’ family album. person. The four figures in the center of the photograph appear to acknowledge the photographic moment. pp. as these were not present when the photograph was taken (1978: 116). the four sitters depicted in Figure 6 appear to subjugate themselves to the photographic gaze of the camera as if time itself were brought to a momentary standstill. The background. One accidental episode captured on film and placed in my family album performs the most significant subversion of official Israeli history precisely because of the family photographs’ capacity to transform inimitable scenes into casual ones. The image I refer to was created during a school trip in the early 1980s and presents me with some of my classmates and a parent. This expansive view is captured from a tourist observation point located at the top of the Mount of Olives. or subject. regional. is loaded with political meanings. designating some time to acting in front of the camera instead. In accordance with de Duve’s theory. but rather has the capacity to empower the photographed subjects. Thus in time exposures the past tense of the view would not refer any more to a particular tense. Copyright © Gil Pasternak.

Rather. Although it could be regarded as inconsistent with the Israeli state’s ideology. 1980s. however. meaning and significance. Here geography was thought of as a political site in which relations between subjects and places overcome. but rather as something of the geographical mundane. the confines of authority (Rogoff 2000: 21). recorded more details than the vista of Old Jerusalem and this group of people. study and alter photographic and geographical spaces. The same photograph presents a snapshot within a time exposure portrait of others. 41–64 . and between subjects and the realm of geography. I described landscape–family photographs as sites that bring to light the intersections between subjects and the perceived dominant orders of geographical and photographic knowledge. While the camera recorded lives that have no location other than the surface of the photograph. and replace these with unstable structures of physical and psychic subjectivities. An Innocent Politics? Landscape– Family Photographs in Israel and Beyond Investigating family photographs in the context of this article has entailed observing travelers engaged in exploratory acts.56  “The Brownies in Palestina” Gil Pasternak of the camera. this figure comes to represent and physically embody the unconscious. I suggested one read family photographs that articulate relations between subjects. Consequently. as sites which contest perceived static ideas about actual and represented places. The Pasternaks’ family album. a photograph found in my own collection of family photographs provides a clear depiction of a member of the Palestinian population identified as such by the white and red keffiyeh he is wearing on his head (Figure 7). and spaces as cultural products of critical activities that loosen and rebuild. For the first time. Palestinian life in the region is alluded to as not being anachronistic or something of the historical. or at least may appear to refuse to go along with. In this regard. places. in turn. 1971–89. it makes visible the presence of others in the region and. The photograph landscapes the performing figures as associated with the Old City of Jerusalem—the Israeli national symbol of state sovereignty. Fig 7 Untitled (detail). sites. it also stole an independent life that was never offered to it. an imaginary discontinuous life. constantly negotiating. of the constructed Israeli landscape. results in landscaping the family anew. it supplements official Israeli history: it expands the field of Israeli “Geographical Imagination”. pp. Copyright © Gil Pasternak. passing by behind the group portrait. Photography & Culture  Volume 6  Issue 1  March 2013. as it were. But it also links them to those the Israeli state has intended to exclude from its national landscape. this photographic slippage does not suggest an incoherent scene.13 Riding on a white donkey. I portrayed the photographs in question as platforms on which geography and photographic conventions are produced at the margins. It has been concerned with temporary expressions of relations between subjects. Thus.

However. that photography conquered the highest end of the representational spectrum in the context of state politics (cf. As such. detached from the realities they depict (Tagg 1988. one sees that the activities carried out by each family member are essentially political. the innocent perception of photographs as reflections of the realities they show still appears to prevail in popular culture (Winston 1998).Gil Pasternak “The Brownies in Palestina”  57 challenging. and revising political ideologies. much more needs to be said about the social. from the moment of its discovery. Furthermore. historical. the products they make within either the public or the domestic environment are thus inevitably politically loaded. In choosing to focus on one family. the institution of the family must not be perceived as an indication of unconditional and unreserved subordination to state ideology or sovereignty. pp. 2011). political. This understanding of the photographic image further empowers and prolongs the medium’s manipulative propensities. most often contributes to both the Photography & Culture  Volume 6  Issue 1  March 2013. Photography’s historicization as a credible means has broadly resulted in a perception of photographs as unconscious eyewitnesses. rights. itself a social norm. Benjamin 1985). Although these rather narrated qualities of objectivity and credibility have been contested both theoretically and empirically from the nineteenth century to the present day (Batchen 1999). and expectations. 2010. Solomon-Godeau 1991). If one acknowledges the status of the nuclear family as a medium rather than as a natural biological organism. and cultural education within the individual family unit. as the most effective medium to shape and reshape viewers’ geographical knowledge in both an informative and simultaneously deceptive manner (Schwartz and Ryan 2003). accumulated. nor that family photographs may serve only the nation-state’s ideological stance. These are dictated by reciprocal and conflicting anticipations. and obligations. it obscures the mediation and subjectivity inevitably embedded in the mode of photographic production. as I have demonstrated elsewhere. imbued with the potential for political subversion. and constructed knowledge has on political. It is perhaps true that family photography. I hope that my choice allowed a clearer insight to be gained into the impact that a subjectively produced.15 The nuclear family and the nation-state operate in relation to one another through complex negotiations of possession and ownership. hopes. 41–64 . In considering the reciprocity between family photographs and geography. I acknowledged and intended to reconcile the semiotic. My own collection of family photographs was used to attend to visual patterns identified during my research into a great number of family photo albums collected and compiled by Jewish-Israeli families. privileges. coupled with dominant political and economic interests. Various authors have already pointed out that the existence of any nuclear family is conditioned by the nation-state. and cultural meaning of the nuclear family’s capacity to produce and present images of itself. and indeed in any visual and verbal act intended to disseminate information.14 I wished to demonstrate this trans-methodological approach by recourse to my own collection of family photographs which. I intended to demonstrate a notion of continuing representational practice and processes across three generations of Jewish Israelis. represents common familial photographic practices in the modern Israeli state (Pasternak 2009. Marxist and phenomenological approaches to the concept of landscape. and realities of belonging. it was this very credible currency so closely associated with the photographic image that qualified photography. scopic constructions. and despite the increase in new photoprocessing and editing software made readily available in the past two decades. Rosler 1989. This is the key to an understanding of family photography not as a mere social practice. but rather as a social platform. Furthermore. It is perhaps primarily due to this sustainable sociocultural value.

topoi. as well as the politics they represent. and even transform its formalist understanding as a mere socializing biographical record. In this article. 41–64 . Analyzing family photographs solely within the context of social integration and cohesion enhances the transparency of the ideological apparatus of family photography. I primarily advanced another research approach that allows a synthesization of these perspectives.16 For this reason. it might be said to ingrain social norms. family photographs inscribe the complex psychic and physical relationship between the subjects they depict and the environments they occupy.58  “The Brownies in Palestina” Gil Pasternak perpetuation and the solidification of common cultural ideas and positions broadly considered acceptable within given social formations. downplaying family photographs’ subversive discourses. the political innocence academic research often associates with family photographs is politically Photography & Culture  Volume 6  Issue 1  March 2013. Yet.” Included in this mechanism through its participation in social and physical practices of production and display. This is despite. at times resilient. pp. The implications of this reciprocity between the family photograph and landscape are made manifest in the context of the “Geographical Imagination. the family photograph’s apparently innocent cultural perception. according to the literature on family photography reviewed here. the nation. whose meanings are created and recreated through subjective perception and corporeal interaction. Even when not entering the public political realm. other times as normative media. Inasmuch as the nation-state and the institution of the family have been widely considered from a critical perspective. and historiographies. the practicing of family photography in the open terrain increases the potential of the family photograph to ascend. and ideological terrains surrounding the family. or perhaps because of. both landscapes and family photographs are sometimes considered as organic products of sociocultural integration.” the landscape–family photograph maintains the potential to elaborate as well as challenge other competing representational regimes used to depict the geopolitical. it currently still serves a mode of production repeatedly used innocently by the nuclear family as a recording mechanism of biographical highlights. When considering these kinds of family photographs as rambling. viewing and “storytelling. and of the various environments that condition their existence and maintenance—the nuclear family. and the state—they appear to be capable of undermining formal doctrines and methods of indoctrination. Thinking of them as discursive sites assists in developing a diverse analytical methodology. This not only enabled me to show how members of the family are capable of reshaping the meanings of their own images while simultaneously embracing and subverting the significance of state symbolism. In particular. and sociological tropes. ideological. while escaping the formal modes of ideological production. imbuing them with alternative. nor the distribution of power by state officials alone. the land. family photography cannot be said to be a practice simply serving familial internal or external integration. In line with the development of various research methodologies. bypassing prescribed academic and popular educational environments. exploratory reminders of both the psychic and physical domestic spheres. contextualization. a well-informed investigation into the political operation of family photographs appears equally necessary in a project that has already identified in this form of representation at least some aspects of political insubordination. guarded and utilized by dominant sociopolitical institutions to inculcate political ideologies to less powerful social formations. Thereby. significance. it also made it possible to reveal the commanding potential of the family photograph to re-landscape the human. while considering family photographs and landscapes as unstable and unfixed platforms. political. As such. Rather. highlighting facets of discrepancies with canonical national.

Steve Edwards (The Open University) for reading previous versions of this article. they also engaged in reshaping the role of the camera. Solkin (1982) and Hemingway (1992). and the perception of photography. which was the first of the Brownies’ books to include a Brownie photographer character whose role was to record the adventures of the Brownie band through their explorations of foreign countries. Professor Irit Rogoff (Goldsmiths’ College). 1951 (Hebrew): 1. 1951 on the road between Ein-Chotzob and Sodom. Ha’aretz. See. “shnei yehudim nirtzechu ba’derech le’sdom” (Two Jews Were Murdered on the Way to Sodom). While in operating the Brownie camera children partook in the growing practices of both amateur and family photography. “ha’meratzhim hitalelu Acknowledgements Research for this article was supported by generous grants from the Overseas Research Students Award Scheme. August 23. in 1917–20 is perhaps one of the most telling examples of child-photographers’ disruption to the order of adult knowledge on a socio-national scale. uses and constructs the same landscape in different ways: these are neither ‘right’ nor ‘wrong’ but they are part of the many layers of meaning within landscape” (1992: 140). The Brownies in the Philippines (1904). 4 “Postmemory” is a term used by Marianne Hirsch to describe the family photograph as one “distinguished from memory by generational distance and from history by deep personal connection” (1997: 22). Every family photograph interferes with the authoritative representational order. Davar.Gil Pasternak “The Brownies in Palestina”  59 suspect. while at its core it is descriptive and apolitical. 41–64 . and Dr. 7 This somewhat basic position can be exemplified by recourse to Peirce Lewis’s “Axioms for Reading the Landscape” (1979). In her view it is “a powerful and very particular form of memory precisely because its connection to its object or source is mediated not through recollection but through an imaginative investment and creation” (Hirsch 1997: 22). I choose to focus on the ones that lead and underpin the main approaches used in current research into family photographs. within both the domestic and the social spheres. 8 See also Gurevitch and Aran (1994). Notes 1 The title of this article takes its cue from Palmer Cox’s book. Hilary Winchester could be said to elaborate upon this by claiming that: “Each person or group views. phenomenology. Marxism. 9 Levinger and Steinlauff were killed in a politically motivated attack in the afternoon of August 21. 2 Nancy Martha West points out that the Kodak campaign for the Brownie camera launched the new product as a toy. and discourse analysis—are often used in parallel with those I discuss here. August 23. I am using “Palestina” because this name maintains the Israeli-Palestinian conflicting ideological sentiments toward the land. inherently manifesting an innocent politics. and therefore one landscape may hold multiple significations. 1951 (Hebrew): 4. and the Kenneth Lindsay Grant of the Anglo-Israel Association. I would like to thank the anonymous peer reviewers for Photography & Culture as well as my very good critical friend Dr. for example. “Palestina” is the Hebraized name of the area stretching between the Jordan River and the eastern coast of the Mediterranean known in English as Palestine. iconography. I am especially grateful to Professor Tamar Garb (University College London). Catriona McAra (University of Huddersfield). 6 In this work Jackson clarifies that the so-called new cultural geography apprehends meanings associated with a landscape to be interpretations rather than givens. See also Rose (2001). pp. See “shnei yehudim nehergu ba’derech le’sdom” (Two Jews Were Killed on the Way to Sodom). 5 The politics of landscape was already recognized by poststructuralist and Marxist art historians in the social history of art in the 1980s and 1990s. allowing children to playfully explore and validate their own world and views (2000: 74–108). 3 Other qualitative methodologies—such as semiology. the University College London Graduate School. The renowned Cottingley Fairies photographic series produced Photography & Culture  Volume 6  Issue 1  March 2013. and for their insightful comments and suggestions.

August 24. Bourdieu (1977. 15 See. of a chain of practices and processes by which geographical information is gathered. It consists. Israel: The Centre for the Heritage of Ben Guryon. Schwartz and Ryan. places. and Dunn (2003). Bourdieu. 240–57. “A Small History of Photography. Walter. vernacular. for example. Dewsbury. 1986. Stanford. fashioning them on the basis of encounters with spatial forms created by others. 1986). Engels (1972).60  “The Brownies in Palestina” Gil Pasternak be’shnei ha’korbanot ba’derech le sdom” (The Murderers Abused the Victims’ Corpses on the Way to Sodom). References Almog. Benvenisti. Oz. Bourdieu. the University of Huddersfield. Design and Architecture. 1951 (Hebrew): 4. Ha’aretz. New York: Greenwood Press. 16 Although ultimately focusing on snapshot photography rather than on family photographs. Photography & Culture  Volume 6  Issue 1  March 2013. Azaryahu. in essence. Catherine Zuromskis’s text on photographic power within public and private spheres also elaborates on and complicates analytical discourses regarding the role photography plays in the dissemination and solidification of grand ideologies. Ben Guryon University Press (Hebrew). and fine art photography in the solidification and subversion of state and society relations. Ingold (2000). London: Verso. 1969. New York and Amsterdam: Princeton Architectural Press and the Van Gogh Museum. Harrison. Burning With Desire: The Conception of Photography. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. for instance. 41–64 . 1951 (Hebrew): 1. and landscapes with meanings of social and cultural life. Chambers (2001). pp. 1977. Forget Me Not: Photography and Remembrance. Bregman. Jerusalem Post. The Frankfurt Institute for Social Research (1972). August 26. 1985. “pirtei ha’retzach be’sdom” (The Murder in Sodom—Details). 1995. Bourdieu. however. Lorimer (2005). Batchen.” Megamot. Withers and Throne (1993). Sacred Landscape: The Buried History of the Holy Land Since 1948. “Geographical Imagination” is a way of thinking that charges spaces. Photography: A Middle-Brow Art. Geoffrey. August 24. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press. He writes widely on the participation of professional. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. redefine this term as “the mechanism by which people come to know the world and situate themselves in space and time. Pierre et al. Richardson (ed. and Wylie (2002). Almog (1991).” In One-Way Street and Other Writings.). Cults of the State: The Celebration of Independence and the Commemoration of Fallen Soldiers 1948–1956. Rose. pp. A History of Israel. 13 Keffiyeh is the Arabic word used to refer to the traditional headdress usually worn by Arab men. Winchester. “Memorials for Fallen Israeli Soldiers: A Semiotic Analysis. 12 For discussions of memorials and patterns of commemoration in Israel see Azaryahu (1995). 241–58. February 17. Kong. 10 Schwartz and Ryan draw upon David Harvey’s use of the term “Geographical Imagination. “The Forms of Capital. Pasternak copublished the book Visual Conflicts: On the Formation of Political Memory in the History of Art and Visual Cultures (Cambridge Scholars Publishing). Davar. arguing that: “The revelatory nature of the medium is equally capable of aiding and undermining such ideologies” (2009: 61). Benjamin. trans. 34: 179–210 (Hebrew). geographical facts are ordered and imaginative geographies are constructed” (2003: 6). Gil Pasternak is Senior Lecturer in Photography and Photography Course Leader at the School of Art. Levi Eshkol (Israeli Prime Minister 1963–69).” In John G. Handbook of Theory and Research for the Sociology of Education. Outline of a Theory of Practice. Richard Nice. “va’adat shnaim yatzah le’sdom” (Two Officials Set Out to Sodom). Pierre. 14 See. Maxin Kaufman-Lacussta. 2004. Thrift and Dewsbury (2000). Geoffrey. Cambridge. Dr. Davar. 1951 (Hebrew): 1. In 2011. Deleuze and Guattari (1983). trans. pp. 1991. Batchen. trans. 11 For example. Maoz. MA: MIT Press. 2002. Ahron. 1990. Meron. Pierre.” According to Harvey (1990). Edmund Jephcott and Kingsley Shorter. 1999. CA: Stanford University Press. 2003.

1981. pp. Anti-Oedipus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia. 33(4): 437–40. Jackson. 3(1): 23–46. David. Representing the Family. “Psychology and Photographic Theory. and New Delhi: Sage Publications. Deleuze. Hirsch. Picturing Place: Photography and the Geographical Imagination. MA: Harvard University Press. Chalfen. David. pp. 19: 95–101. “Between Space and Time: Reflections on the Geographical Imagination. Image-Based Research: A Sourcebook for Qualitative Researchers. Palmer. London: Unwin Hyman. 1990. Haldrup. 1998. Zali and Gideon Aran. Maps of Meaning: An Introduction to Cultural Geography. Mark Seem. The Brownies in the Philippines. “Introduction: Iconography and Landscape. 1996. Duncan. Órla. Lane. Cox. Morgan. 1981. Cosgrove. Dwelling and Skill. Tim. Eleanor M. Deborah. Duve. 96–114.” Environment and Planning D: Society and Space. Boston: Beacon Press. The Iconography of Landscape. Picturing Place: Photography & Culture  Volume 6  Issue 1  March 2013. “The Family Gaze.” In Jon Prosser (ed. 214–34. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Private Property and the State in the Light of the Researches of Lewis H.” In Joan Schwartz and James Ryan (eds). “Picturing Nations: Landscape Photography and National Identity in Britain and Germany in the Mid-Nineteenth Century. “The Land of Israel: Myth and Phenomenon. “The 1948 Israeli-Palestinian War and Its Aftermath: The Transformation and De-Signification of Palestine’s Cultural Landscape. Harvey. Thousand Oaks. Gurevitch.” Annals of the Association of American Geographers. The Meaning of Things: Domestic Symbols and the Self. Hight. 86(2): 256–85. Denis and Stephen Daniels. pp. Inside Culture: Art and Class in the American Home. Peter. Julia. 1–10. Richard. 1988. “Time Exposure and Snapshot: The Photograph as Paradox. and Gary D. “Enacting Geographies. Family Photographs: Content. 2003. Hirsch. pp. Engels. Halle. Tauris. 1993.” Tourist Studies. Aspects of Sociology. Paul Harrison. 1992. 2003. Friedrich. The Frankfurt Institute for Social Research. New York: International Publishers. pp. 1972. 1988. London: Falmer Press. John David. London: Routledge. “Representing the Family. 1978. 2001.). Memory and Post-Narrative. Hemingway. The Perception of the Environment: Essays on Livelihood. Thierry de. and Helen R. Family Frames: Photography. 1998. 80(3): 418–34. 2000. 2002. 1987. David L. Ohio: Bowling Green State University Press. Harvard. 1904. Cosgrove. 195–210. Csikszentmihalyi.” In Joan Schwartz and James Ryan (eds). Richard. 2006. Gilles and Félix Guattari. James and Nancy Duncan. Landscape Imagery and Urban Culture in Early Nineteenth-Century Britain. London: Falmer Press. ImageBased Research: A Sourcebook for Qualitative Researchers. Steve. Studies in Contemporary Jewry. B. Jens. 1981. London and New York: Routledge. “(Re)reading the Landscape. Ingold. New York: The Century Co.). New York: Oxford University Press. 1997. “New Directions in Cultural Geography. and John Wylie. 1987. Dewsbury. Meaning and Effect. 41–64 .). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 5: 113–25.” Area. “Domestic Snapshots: Towards a Grammar of Motives.” Geoforum. Jäger. trans. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 69–83. London. The Origin of the Family. 4(1): 93–105. Deborah. Mihaly and Eugene Rochberg-Halton. Jacobs. 1983. Mitch Rose. Cronin.Gil Pasternak “The Brownies in Palestina”  61 Chalfen. Pennsylvania: Penn State University Press. Denis and Peter Jackson. pp. Sampson (eds). 2002. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Ghazi. Michael and Jonas Larsen.” Annals of the Association of American Geographers. Colonialist Photography: Imag(in)ing Race and Place.” In Denis Cosgrove and Stephen Daniels (eds). Chambers. Marianne. London and New York: I. Chambers. 6: 117–26. Robert Hurley. 1972.” In Jonathan Frankel (ed. 2003. Edwards. 1989.” October. Falah.” In Jon Prosser (ed. The Making of English Photography: Allegories. “Interpreting Family Photography as Pictorial Communication. 1994. Andrew. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.” Journal of American Culture. Chicago: Chicago University Press. Snapshot Versions of Life.

139–68. Memory. The Interpretation of Ordinary Landscapes: Geographical Essays. Rose. 48(1): 1–19. Selwyn. pp. 1982. 2009. London and New York: I. Allan. 129–46. London: Reaktion Books. 39: 3–64. “Cultural Geography: The Busyness of Being ‘More Than Representational. 113(3): 177–85. Allan. Orientalism. 28(1): 5–18.).” In Donald W. Schwartz. “Axioms for Reading the Landscape.” Critical Inquiry. Gillian. Joan and James Ryan. Said. On Photography. Jonas. 303–40. 2003. Rose. “Imperial Landscape. Solomon-Godeau. 1978. 1991.” In Richard Bolton (ed. “‘A New’ Cultural Geography? Debates About Invention and Reinvention.” Technology and Culture. Sontag. 1–18. Terra Infirma: Geography’s Visual Culture. Thousand Oaks. Jo and Patricia Holland (eds). Hayden. 1995. The Tourist Image: Myths and Myth Making in Tourism. 1979. 1979. 41–64 .169–83. pp. Around and Afterthoughts (On Documentary Photography). pp. London: John Wiley. “Families Seen Sightseeing: Performativity of Tourist Photography. Susan. “The Family Photography Album: So Great a Cloud of Witnesses.” Space and Culture. Meinig (ed. Cambridge. Olivier.” In Paul Fox and Gil Pasternak (eds). 29(1): 83–94. Lily. “In. “Posthumous Interruptions: The Political Life of Family Photographs in Israeli Military Cemeteries. Richard Wilson: The Landscape of Reaction. London and New York: Routledge. “Domestic Photography and Digital Culture. The Contest of Meaning: Critical Histories of Photography. 2005.” Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers. Pasternak. Institutions. Surrey and Burlington: Ashgate. Phillip. The Photographic Image in Digital Culture. 3(1): 41–63.’ ” Progress in Human Geography.62  “The Brownies in Palestina” Gil Pasternak Photography and the Geographical Imagination. “Invention.” Object. Gillian. Lorimer. “Introduction: Photography and Geographical Imagination. Stokes. Slater. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press. Irit. Pasternak. 11–32. 2003. 1992. pp.” October. Visual Methodologies: An Introduction to the Interpretation of Visual Materials. 5–34. B. London. MA: MIT Press. Tauris. London: Routledge. Pasternak. David H. The Public and The Politics of Sentiment. 193–205. and New Delhi: Sage Publications. and Place. Spence. London: Tate Gallery. Landscape and Power. 1989.” Photography and Culture. Sekula. 2010.” In Martin Lister (ed. pp. T. Said. Ilan. pp. A History of Modern Palestine: One Land. Tom (ed.” Scottish Geographical Magazine. London: Virago Press.). Mitchell. Don.). 1995.). London and New York: I. “The Traffic in Photographs. Gil.” Art Journal. “Playing Soldiers: Posing Militarism in the Domestic Sphere.). 2000. London: Verso. Kuhn. 2007. 2010. Rosler. Gil. 26(2): 175–92. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing. Visual Conflicts: On the Formation of Political Memory in the History of Art and Visual Cultures. Peirce F. “George Eastman’s Modern StoneAge Family: Snapshot Photography and the Brownie. Doing Family Photography: The Domestic. The Portrait in Photography. 2011. Picturing Place: Photography and the Geographical Imagination. 2000. Edward. 8(4): 416–34. pp. “Who Is Speaking Thus: Some Questions About Documentary Photography.” In Abigail Solomon-Godeau (ed. Lewis. T. and Practices. Mitchell (ed. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. pp. Photography & Culture  Volume 6  Issue 1  March 2013. Larsen. Two Peoples. Family Secrets: Acts of Memory and Imagination. Solkin. William J. 117–40. “Covering Horror: Family Photographs in Israeli Reportage on Terrorism. London: Penguin. Tauris. Kong.” In William J. 1996. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 2006. 1986. Rose. 41(1): 15–25.” In Graham Clarke (ed. Martha. B. Photography at the Dock: Essays on Photographic History. Rogoff. Family Snaps: The Meanings of Domestic Photography.). 2001.). Gillian. 2005. New York: Oxford University Press. Pappé. Edward. Abigail. pp. Annette. “The Body and the Archive. Sekula. 11: 87–104. 1991. “Family Photographs and Domestic Spacings: A Case Study. 1981. 1994.” In Joan Schwartz and James Ryan (eds). pp. Marc. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. 1997. Gil.

Brian. Hilary P. 1992. Yael.” In Pauline Boss et al.Gil Pasternak “The Brownies in Palestina”  63 Tagg. 591–622. Winchester. London and New York: Routledge. Long. West. 139–56.. pp. and Barrie Throne. Photography: Theoretical Snapshots. and New Delhi: Sage Publications. Urry. Thrift. Zerubavel. Withers. “The Construction and Deconstruction of Women’s Role in the Urban Landscape. “Family Photographs and Transition to Parenthood. 18(4): 411–32. pp. pp. New York: Plenum Press. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Charlottesville and London: University Press of Virginia. 2009. Recovered Roots: Collective Memory and the Making of Israeli National Tradition. The Tourist Gaze: Leisure and Travel in Contemporary Societies. “Feminist Theories: The Social Construction of Gender in Families and Societies. 41–64 .). Melbourne: Longman Cheshire. 2000. 1990. Sourcebook of Family Theories and Methods: A Contextual Approach. pp. 1992. London: Falmer Press. Osmond M. London and New York: Pearson Prentice Hall. Nancy M. pp. Catherine. Image-based Research: A Source Book for Qualitative Researchers.” In Jon Prosser (ed. and Edward Welch (eds). Zuromskis. John. 1998. Inventing Places: Studies in Cultural Geography. Titus. Valerie. Landscapes: Ways of Imagining the World. London: Verso. “On Snapshot Photography: Rethinking Photographic Power in Public and Private Spheres. Lily Kong. Sandra L. “Dead Geographies—and How to Make Them Live. 2000. “‘The Camera Never Lies’: The Partiality of Photographic Evidence. Schoolgirl Fictions. 1976. The Burden of Representation: Essays on Photographies and Histories. London. 38(3): 525–30. 60–68. London and Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Walkerdine. 49–62. John. Nigel and John David Dewsbury. and Kevin Dunn. 1993.” In Kay Anderson and Fay Gale (eds). Newbury Park. 1988. Taylor and Francis Group. Kodak and the Lens of Nostalgia. Photography & Culture  Volume 6  Issue 1  March 2013. M. Winchester. Andrea Noble.” In J. (eds). J.” Journal of Marriage and Family.” Environment and Planning D: Society and Space. Hilary. 1995. Winston. 2003.