Published version in Current Sociology, May 2007, Vol.

55(3): 323342
Visibility. !ate"ory #or the $o%ial $%ien%es
ndrea &ri"henti
'
(2007)
abstract: !an visibility be %ounted as a "eneral %ate"ory #or the so%ial s%ien%es( )he atte*+t to
+rovide an ans,er to this -uestion entails both des%ribin" a%tual +heno*ena o# visibility, and de#inin"
the %hara%teristi%s o# visibility as a ,or.able, uni#ied %ate"ory. )his arti%le analyses the relational,
strate"i% and +ro%essual as+e%ts o# visibility as %onstitutin" a sin"le #ield. )he i*+ortan%e o# this #ield
is rooted in the dee+ e+iste*olo"y o# seein" +resent in our so%iety, as ,ell as in its ratio vis/a/vis the
other hu*an sensory di*ensions and e0tensions. t the substantive level, the arti%le addresses the
-uestion o# the a*bivalen%es o# visibility and its e##e%ts, a%%ordin" to so%ial +la%es and sub1e%ts.
2e%o"nition and %ontrol are understood and e0+lained as t,o o++osin" out%o*es o# visibility. 3t is
ar"ued that e*+o,er*ent does not rest univo%ally either ,ith visibility (as it is assu*ed by the
tradition o# re%o"nition) or ,ith invisibility (as it is assu*ed by the arcana imperii tradition).
keywords: *edia4 re%o"nition4 so%iolo"i%al %ate"ories4 surveillan%e4 visibility
3nelu%table *odality o# the visible: at least that i# no *ore, thou"ht
throu"h *y eyes. $i"nature o# all thin"s 3 a* here to read, seas+a,n and
sea,ra%., the nearin" tide, that rusty boot. $not"reen, bluesilver, rust:
%oloured si"ns. 5i*its o# the dia+hane. &ut he adds: in bodies. )hen he
,as a,are o# the* bodies be#ore o# the* %oloured. 6o,( &y .no%.in"
his s%on%e a"ainst the*, sure. 7o easy. &ald he ,as and a *illionaire,
maestro di color che sanno. 5i*it o# the dia+hane in. 8hy in(
9ia+hane, adia+hane. 3# you %an +ut your #ive #in"ers throu"h it it is a
"ate, i# not a door. $hut your eyes and see. (:a*es :oy%e, ;lysses)
The Visible and the Symbolic
8hen it %o*es to enu*eratin" <basi%= so%iolo"i%al %ate"ories, there is no basi% a"ree*ent. &ut there is at
least a bun%h o# ,ords *ost so%iolo"ists ,ill ad*it it is hard to do ,ithout or, #or so*e, to es%a+e #ro*.
)hese in%lude thin"s li.e (so%ial) a%tion, #a%t, stru%ture, status, %lass, +o,er, "rou+, ritual, re+resentation
and, o# %ourse ,hatever it *eans so%iety. >uite a #e, brilliant and leadin" theorists stru""led
throu"hout their lives in order to set u+ one su%h ,ord, i.e. to "et so*e <#ield= or <syste*=, so*e <sub1e%t=
'
ndrea &ri"henti, via ?ran@ Aa#.a, B, 3B0CC 2iva del 7arda, 3taly. e*ail: andrea.bri"hentiDso%.unitn.it
E
Published version in Current Sociology, May 2007, Vol. 55(3): 323342
or <net,or.= added to the list. $in%e not *any +eo+le ,ould +ut their e##orts into %a*+ai"nin" #or visibility
and sur+risin"ly, "iven the nu*ber o# so%iolo"i%al theories and resear%hes that are bound to deal ,ith this
%on%e+t, and des+ite the hu"e literature on visual arts and visual lan"ua"e 3 ,ould li.e to assi"n *ysel#
the tas. o# develo+in" the ar"u*ent that visibility %an be %ounted as a #ully entitled so%iolo"i%al %ate"ory. 3
a* not sayin" <basi%= %ate"ory: 3 a* not that a*bitious, and rather s%e+ti%al about +aradi"*s.
d*ittedly, the visual is a notable as+e%t o# our %ulture. 3ndeed, this has been so in *any other ti*es
and +la%es around the ,orld. 6o,ever, ,e .no, #ro* anthro+olo"y that the very nu*ber o# +er%e+tual
senses and the #ault/lines #or their de*ar%ation are %ulturally bound (!lassen, EFF3, EFF7). 5i.e,ise,
hierar%hi%al relationshi+s a*on" the various senses (,hi%h is the *ost <noble= one, the *ost
e+iste*olo"i%ally reliable) and the li.eliness o# synaestheti% e##e%ts (the le"iti*a%y o# the #usion o#
di##erent senses) are %ulturally de+endent and evolve in ti*e. Misre%o"nition o# the variety o# sensory
e0+erien%e is due to the +redo*inan%e o# one sense over the others. 3n the Modern "e, the distan%e senses
o# si"ht and hearin" have *ar"inali@ed the +ro0i*ity senses o# s*ell, tou%h and taste (6o,es, EFFE, 2003).
)hese observations %on#ir* that the do*ain o# +hysi%al +er%e+tion is ine0tri%ably inter*i0ed ,ith
%o"nition. Per%e+tion entails a theoreti%al di*ension, as the e+iste*olo"i%al debate sin%e the EFC0s, and
+arti%ularly the s%holarshi+ o# Auhn, 5a.atos and ?eyerabend, +ointed out. ?or instan%e, in ?eyerabend=s
(EF7B) a%%ount, 7alileo, ,ith his teles%o+e e0+eri*ents, %reated a ne,, initially %ounterintuitive ,ay o#
seein" that ,as #un%tional to su++ort his astrono*i%al theory. 3n short, sensorial e0+erien%e and theory "o
hand in hand.
8hat ,e are s+e%i#i%ally interested in is not the visual di*ension +er se, but the *ore %o*+le0
+heno*enon o# the #ield o# visibility. Visibility lies at the interse%tion o# the t,o do*ains o# aestheti%s
(relations o# perception) and +oliti%s (relations o# power). 8hen these t,o ter*s are understood in a
su##i%iently broad *eanin", it *a.es sense to say that the *ediu* bet,een the t,o do*ains o# aestheti%s
and +oliti%s is the symbolic. sy*bol is aestheti%ally i*+ressive and se*ioti%ally relevant in so%ial
relations. :ust thin. o# the +o,er#ul and a*bivalent +osition o# the light in ,estern %ulture, its indelibly
*eta+hysi%al residuum: li"ht is the obsession o# +hysi%s as ,ell as o# reli"ion, it *ar.s the #ield o# the
sa%red and that o# the se%ular. 3t is not si*+ly visible. 3t %onstitutes a #or* o# visibility.
)he sy*boli% di*ension o# the visible is %entral in *edia te%hnolo"ies. 6ere, o# %ourse, the na*es o#
Marshall M%5uhan and 8alter Gn" %o*e to *ind. )heir #unda*ental %ontribution de*onstrated ho,
%o**uni%ative te%hnolo"ies ,or. as e0tensions o# %or+oreal senses. )hese e0tensions are hardly neutral.
)hey %ontribute to sele%tively enhan%e a %ertain ty+e o# sensory +er%e+tion and establish a <ratio= a*on"
the senses, a hierar%hi%al ran.in". )he su+re*a%y o# vision, M%5uhan (EFC4) and Gn" (EF77) ar"ued, is
%onte0tually lin.ed to the al+habet te%hnolo"y, +arti%ularly in its ty+o"ra+hi% +eriod.
)he theoreti%al sta.e #or so%ial s%ientists in inter+retin" visibility is not #indin" one ,ay to
*eanin"#ully tal. about #i"urative i*a"es, +aintin"s, #il*s, lands%a+es and the li.e. 2ather, 3 thin., here ,e
have a +roble* that +oints to,ards a *ore %o*+rehensive tas. o# i*a"inin" a "eneral %ate"ory that enables
us to thin. about a ,ider ran"e o# +heno*ena and *e%hanis*s. a va sans dire, i*a"es, their +rodu%tion
2
Published version in Current Sociology, May 2007, Vol. 55(3): 323342
and their %onsu*+tion, are a*on" these. &ut *any other +heno*ena that are usually inter+reted throu"h
%lassi% so%iolo"i%al %ate"ories %ould turn out to be ,ithin the 1urisdi%tion o# visibility. Visibility is a
*eta+hor o# .no,led"e, but it is not si*+ly an i*a"e: it is a real so%ial +ro%ess in itsel#.
)here are several areas in so%iolo"i%al literature ,here the issue o# visibility a++ears, #ro* "ender to
*inority studies, #ro* %o**uni%ation studies to the theories o# +o,er. Most o# these studies dee*
visibility to be an i*+ortant #a%tor. 6o,ever, ea%h o# the* tends to treat visibility in its o,n ter*s, as a
lo%al %on%e+t. !onse-uently, these studies do not see* to be en"a"ed ,ithin a sin"le %onversation. Gn the
%ontrary, the ar"u*ent develo+ed here is *eant to sho, that the issue o# visibility %an be treated as a sin"le
#ield, and that there ,ould be *u%h to be "ained by ta.in" su%h a ne, vie,+oint.
The Field of Visibility
)o be"in ,ith, there are at least a #e, .ey #eatures o# visibility ,e *ust a%%ount #or: relationshi+, strate"y,
#ield and +ro%ess. )he relational -uality o# visibility is lin.ed to the basi% #a%t that, ,hen the a%tivity o#
,at%hin" o%%urs a*on" livin" %reatures, seein" and bein" seen are inti*ately %onne%ted. )his as+e%t ,as
a%utely noti%ed by 7eor" $i**el (EFCF). 3n his e0%ursus on the so%iolo"y o# the senses, $i**el
investi"ated the <uni-uely so%iolo"i%al #un%tion= o# the eye, and es+e%ially o# re%i+ro%al eye/to/eye %onta%t.
)he sy**etri%al dire%tness o# the eye/to/eye, o# re%i+ro%al visibility that e0ists only inso#ar as it is
un*ediated (by ,ords or other i*a"es), is #or $i**el the *ost #unda*ental ty+e o# hu*an intera%tion. 3t is
so be%ause it leads to an understandin" o# the other that is not #iltered by "eneral %ate"ories, but is truly
individual and sin"ular. 8hat ,e *ay at #irst be te*+ted to dis*iss as <su+er#i%ial i*+ression= is in #a%t the
*ost basi% +resentational #or* o# so%iability at lar"e, and it is "rounded in the visibility o# ea%h other=s
%ountenan%e.
3n an ideal natural settin", the rule is that i# 3 %an see you, you %an see *e. &ut thin"s are not that
si*+le: the relation o# visibility is o#ten asy**etri%4 the %on%e+t o# intervisibility, o# re%i+ro%ity o# vision,
is al,ays i*+er#e%t and li*ited. 3n *ilitary strate"y, it is ,ell .no,n that ,hen 3 a* on the +ea.s o# a
*ountain and you are do,n in the valley, 3 %an easily tra%. your *ove*ents #or hundreds o# *etres
around, but you %an tra%. *y *ove*ents only in a *u%h *ore li*ited ,ay. !o*+le0 and less %o*+le0
te%hnolo"i%al devi%es, #ro* %urtains to stone ,alls, #ro* video %a*eras to satellites, enhan%e visibility
asy**etries a%%ordin" to +lanned arran"e*ents, liberatin" it #ro* the s+atialte*+oral +ro+erties o# the
here and no, (see )ho*+son, 2005). )he relational as+e%t o# visibility +oints +re%isely to the #a%t that
asy**etries and distortions o# visibility are the nor*, vis/a/vis the e0%e+tion o# +er#e%t intervisibility.
sy**etries trans#or* visibility into a site o# strate"y. s a *atter o# strate"y, visibility e0ists in cones
and truncated cones: seein" and bein" seen are al,ays e0er%ised in the #or* o# <#ro*Hto #e,H*any=. 3n
<Ior*al ++earan%es=, 7o##*an (EF7E) e0+lored this +roble* in a +enetratin" ,ay, ,ith a %entral %on%ern
to,ards relations o# visibility as they overla+ and interse%t ,ith +er%e+tions o# dan"er. 7o##*an sho,ed
that nor*al%y re+resents in #a%t a state o# invisibility o# the environ*ent. 3n the la%. o# alar* *essa"es, the
environ*ent is <trans+arent= to the observer. &uildin" on 7o##*an=s di##eren%e bet,een bein" at ease and
3
Published version in Current Sociology, May 2007, Vol. 55(3): 323342
bein" alar*ed, one %an a++re%iate the %hara%teristi%s o# the nor*al as those o# the invisible: the nor*al is
un*ar.ed, unnoti%ed, unthe*ati@ed, untheori@ed. s $udno, (EF72) also ar"ued, seein"/at/a/"lan%e *ar.s
the timing o# inter+ersonal a%tion. 7lan%es are intera%tive +heno*ena #or %o/+rodu%in" nor*al %onte0ts.
6o,ever, ,hile 7o##*an and $udno, too. an e"o%entri% +oint o# vie, on su%h +hysi%al visible
environ*ents ,here hu*an bein"s intera%t the Umwelt 3 ,ould su""est loo.in" at visibility #ro* an
i*+ersonal, +urely relational, +oint o# vie,, in other ,ords to %onsider it as a field.
7o##*an and $udno, e0+lored visibility %ones ,hose verte0 %onsisted essentially in an individual, and
,here visibility in#or*ation #lo,ed #ro* the environ*ent to the individual. &ut ,e should e0+lain all the
other di##erent %one/li.e #a*ilies o# #lo,s. 8hen a trans#or*ation in re%i+ro%al visibilities o%%urs, i.e. ,hen
so*ethin" be%o*es *ore visible or less visible than be#ore, ,e should as. ourselves ,ho is a%tin" on and
rea%tin" to the +ro+erties o# the #ield, and ,hi%h s+e%i#i% relationshi+s are bein" sha+ed. )he #ield o#
visibility is distin%t #ro* all sin"ular visibility #lo,s. 3t is endo,ed ,ith its o,n thresholds o# relevan%e
and its *ulti+le ense*bles o# %ones. )he +oint *ay be %lari#ied this ,ay: ,hile visibility is a non/
e"o%entri% #ield, there is no su%h thin" as an i*+ersonal <visible=.
$ha+in" and *ana"in" visibility is a hu"e ,or. that hu*an bein"s do tirelessly. s %o**uni%ation
te%hnolo"ies enlar"e the #ield o# the so%ially visible, visibility be%o*es a su++ly and de*and *ar.et. t
any enlar"e*ent o# the #ield, the -uestion arises o# ,hat is ,orth bein" seen at ,hi%h +ri%e alon" ,ith the
nor*ative -uestion o# ,hat should and ,hat should not be seen. )hese -uestions are never si*+ly a
te%hni%al *atter: they are inherently +ra%ti%al and +oliti%al.
)he +roble* o# ,hat to sho,, and ,ith ,hat %onse-uen%es, is +ersistent in s%ien%e, too. 3n his study on
the re+resentation o# illness in *odern *edi%ine, $ander 7il*an (EFF5: 33) stressed the +e%uliar status o#
visibility re"i*es, due to the <si*ultaneous, *ulti+le, and o#ten %ontradi%tory *eanin"s inherent in all
i*a"es= a +oint that has been *ade re%ently also by $usan $onta" (2003) in her study on the
re+resentation o# +ain. Medi%al theory and +ra%ti%e, as ,ell as the %ir%ulation o# *edi%al .no,led"e in
+o+ular %ulture, set u+ a visual nor*ative *odel based on the o++osition o# health and illness, beauty and
u"liness, ,hi%h %ould be strate"i%ally de+loyed in the atte*+t to %ontrol an0iety about illness. 5i.e,ise,
?ou%ault (EF73) +la%ed a visibility *e%hanis* at the "enesis o# ,hat he %alled the regard mdicale. )he
*edi%al "a@e ,as understood by ?ou%ault not as a +ersonal, but as an i*+ersonal, dis%i+linary "a@e.
Modern *edi%ine has its *ain "round in the <triu*+h o# vision= that %an be rea%hed in the auto+sy
literally, <to see ,ith your o,n eyes= o# the %or+se. )he individual livin" body, on the %ontrary, +resents
itsel# as invisible, both be%ause o# its or"ani% de+th, its i*+enetrability to si"ht, and be%ause o# the intri%ate
inter,eavin"s o# sy*+to*s it e0hibits. %%ordin"ly, the tas. o# *odern *edi%ine be%a*e that o# brin"in"
the invisible ba%. to visibility.
The Epistemology of Seeing
)here is a dee+ epistemology of seeing in ,estern thou"ht. 8e %an "ain an insi"ht#ul idea o# this by readin"
:oy%e=s +oeti% *o%.in" o# a s%holarly +hiloso+hi% ar"u*ent at the be"innin" o# the third %ha+ter o# Ulysses
4
Published version in Current Sociology, May 2007, Vol. 55(3): 323342
and ,hi%h dorno sar%asti%ally sti"*ati@ed as <+ee+hole *eta+hysi%s=. 3t has o#ten been observed that
the e+iste*olo"y o# *odern s%ien%e and *odern +hiloso+hy at lar"e do attribute a #unda*ental role to the
sense o# si"ht, in the #or*s o# vision and eviden%e. Vision is an alias #or intelle%tual a++rehension. )his
,ould not have been +ossible ,ithout a %o*+le*entary o+eration %arried out by 9es%artes, ,ho di"ni#ied
vision but only inso#ar as it ,as understood as an o+eration o# thought, rather than o# the eyes. 3n #a%t, it
,as the o++osite o# the lin"uisti% shi#t #ro* the 7ree. ,ord theorin, ,hi%h *eans to see, to the ,ord
=theory=. %onstant tension bet,een the identity o# vision and .no,led"e, on the one hand, and the
o++osition o# .no,led"e and vision, on the other hand, is a %onstant o# *odern +hiloso+hy. !riti%is* o#
vision as a valid sour%e o# .no,led"e ,as at the %ore o# *ost s%e+ti%al ar"u*ents de+loyed by rationalist
+hiloso+hers a"ainst the e*+iri%ists.
3n 20th/%entury +hiloso+hy, vision .no,s t,o antony*s: the #irst is language, es+e%ially the lo"i%al and
a/sensorial inter+retations o# lan"ua"e heralded by 8itt"enstein in the Tractatus and 6eide""er in Sein und
Zeit. )he se%ond is distorted vision, the de%ou+lin" o# vision and reason, ,hi%h %a*e alon" as a re1e%tion o#
the !artesian visual *odel. 3n this latter %ase, there is a #as%ination #or le ct obscure de la vision, the
dar., irrational, nonanalyti%al as+e%ts o# vision, the #li+side o# the %oin o# les ides claires et distinctes
(9es%artes= #a*ous re%i+e). 3n a *onu*ental boo., Martin :ay (EFF3) "rou+ed these t,o #or*s o# rea%tion
to vision under the label o# <antio%ular%entris*=, ,hi%h he dia"nosed and analysed in detail in the ?ren%h
intelle%tual tradition. :ay re%onstru%ts the ,ide strea* o# antio%ular%entris* ran"in" #ro* avant/"arde
*ove*ents in#luen%ed by +sy%hoanalysis to %riti%al +hiloso+hers ,ho deni"rated %lassi%al %on%e+tions o#
vision. ;+on a %loser s%rutiny o# his ,or., ,e reali@e that ,hat *ost o# antio%ular%entri% authors %riti%i@ed
,as not vision +er se, but the idea o# a sin"le, absolute, he"e*oni%, stati%, theolo"i%al/rational eye. )heirs
,as not a *ere dis*issal, but an in/de+th %riti%al en"a"e*ent. )hrou"h these authors, si"ht under"oes a
+ro#ound loss o# inno%en%e. )he hy+ostasis o# vision as +o,er ,as un*as.ed. 3ndeed, +o,er is the evil
*ost o# the authors dis%ussed by :ay ,ere %on%erned ,ith, and vision ,as a *atter o# ,orry #or the*
inso#ar as it ,as a *eans, a tool or a ,ea+on o# +o,er.
3ndis+utably, vision is a sense o# +o,er, or better, a sense ,hi%h %on#ers a sense o# +o,er. Jverythin" I
see is, at least +otentially, ,ithin the rea%h o# the I can. 8hat is not seen is not the*ati@ed as an ob1e%t in
the do*ain o# a%tion. )he invisible, ,rote Merleau/Ponty (EFCB) in his beauti#ul EFC0 ,or. notes, is not
si*+ly so*ethin" visible that ha++ens to be %ontin"ently a,ay #ro* si"ht. 2ather, the invisible is ,hat is
here without being an obect. )he invisible is intrinsic to the visible, is ,hat *a.es it +ossible. )he
punctum caecum o# the eye, ,hat the eye ,ill never be able to see, is ,hat *a.es it +ossible #or the eye to
see all the rest o# the ,orld. )he blind +oint, the invisible, is ,hat %onne%ts +hysi%ally the sub1e%t/observer
to the ob1e%t/observed.
9o ,e +er%eive unarti%ulated ,holes, or is +er%e+tion +art o# the +ro%ess o# arti%ulation( ?ou%ault
(EF72) distin"uished the visible (,hat %an be seen), ,hi%h he identi#ied ,ith the re"i*e o# the non/
dis%ursive, and the articulable (,hat %an be said in a "iven %ultural universe), ,hi%h he asso%iated ,ith the
dis%ursive. )he distin%tion ,as *eant to *aintain the +riority o# the dis%ursive, althou"h ?ou%ault also
5
Published version in Current Sociology, May 2007, Vol. 55(3): 323342
a%.no,led"ed that the visible %an never be #ully and su%%ess#ully redu%ed to the arti%ulable (9eleu@e,
EFBB4 ?Kti, 2003). &ut is there really in%o**ensurability bet,een the t,o( re they se+arate entities, li.e
,ater and oil, that do not *i0(
"ainst the radi%al se+aration o# the visible and the arti%ulable, one %an advan%e the ar"u*ent that, as
,e try to i*a"ine a +ure visible or a +ure arti%ulable as severed #ro* one another, ,e -ui%.ly #all into a
+arado0. )he aesthetic (and, s+e%i#i%ally, the visually aestheti%) arrives earlier to us, al*ost instantly, but in
#a%t it is be%ause the political (?ou%ault=s arti%ulable) is al,ays already there. )rue, the t,o do*ains s+ea.
di##erent lan"ua"es, but the one %arries the other on,ards. 3t is not that they are o%%asionally *i0ed
to"ether: they are al,ays to"ether. )here is no visible ,ithout ways o# seein", ,hi%h are so%ially and
intera%tionally %ra#ted (7ood,in, EFFC), and even the +ure abstra%t arti%ulation that *a.es these ,ays
+ossible %an be %on%eived as an invisible (in Merleau/Ponty=s sense), rather than a distin%t, unrelated
re"i*e. )he visible *ay o%%asionally loo. obs%ure, but ,ords %an be obs%ure, too as in &or"es=s library
o# &abel. )he arti%ulable *ay o%%asionally loo. abstra%t, but i*a"es %an be abstra%t, too as in
Aandins.y=s theory o# +aintin". Visibility is +re%isely the %o*+le0 #ield ,here the visible and the
arti%ulable %oe0ist, rather than e0%ludin" ea%h other. )his also hel+s understand ,hy, alon"side an
e+iste*olo"y o# seein", there ur"ently arises the issue o# the i*H*orality o# seein".
Recognition
Visibility is %losely asso%iated to recognition. significant other (Mead, EF5F) <tests= and <testi#ies= our
e0isten%e by loo.in" at us. Visibility has to do ,ith sub1e%ti#i%ation and ob1e%ti#i%ation, ,ith the onto/
e+iste*olo"i%al %onstitution o# ob1e%ts and sub1e%ts. )he +oint ,as %learly *ade by 6e"el (EF77: L353 ##.)
in his *asterservant diale%ti%. )here is a ,hole thread o# thou"ht in %onte*+orary +oliti%al +hiloso+hy
that has *ade the 6e"elian %on%e+t o# <re%o"nition= a %entral -uestion. !harles )aylor (EFBF) understands
re%o"nition as a basi% %ate"ory o# hu*an identity, ,hose ori"in %an be tra%ed ba%. to the :udeo/!hristian
and the se%ular Jnli"hten*ent +ro1e%ts o# <li#e in %o**on=. 3n every +lural +olity, there are 6e"elian
<stru""les #or re%o"nition= and there is a ,hole <+oliti%s o# re%o"nition= ()aylor, EFF2). 2e%o"nition is a
#or* o# so%ial visibility, ,ith %ru%ial %onse-uen%es on the relation bet,een *inority "rou+s and the
*ainstrea*. 2al+h Jllison=s novel Invisible !an (EF47) *a.es the +oint *ore e##e%tively than *u%h later
so%iolo"i%al resear%h. ?or ra%ial and se0ual *inorities, bein" invisible *eans bein" de+rived o# re%o"nition.
6o,ever, visibility is not lin.ed to re%o"nition in a linear, strai"ht#or,ard ,ay. )hresholds o# visibility
%o*e into +lay here: there is a *ini*u* and a *a0i*u* o# ,hat ,e *ay %all <#air visibility= re"ardless
o# the #airness %riteria ,e ,ant to ado+t. &elo, the lo,er threshold, you are so%ially e0%luded. $te+hen
?rears= "irty #retty Things (2002) +aints so vividly the daily and, above all ni"htly li#e o# the ille"al
*i"rant as the li#e o# an invisible sub1e%t. )he ille"al *i"rant is a so%ially invisible, yet sy*boli%ally
%ru%ial, homo sacer ("a*ben, EFFB4 2a1ara* and 7rundy/ 8arr, 2004). 5i.e,ise, advan%ed
neoliberalis* leads to the rise o# ne, and invisible #or*s o# +overty, dis%ursively %onstru%ted as the
underclass, le peuple sans visage ,ho inhabit the slu*s o# the ,orld$ )hese +eo+le are the unseen, the
C
Published version in Current Sociology, May 2007, Vol. 55(3): 323342
e0%luded.
Gn the other hand, as you +ush yoursel# or are +ushed over the u++er threshold o# #air visibility, you
enter a @one o# su+ra/visibility, or su+er/visibility, ,here everythin" you do be%o*es "i"anti% to the +oint
that it +aralyses you. 3t is a %ondition o# +arado0i%al double bind that #orbids you to do ,hat you are
si*ultaneously re-uired to do by the ,hole ense*ble o# so%ial %onstraints. Media re+resentations o#
*i"rants as %ri*inals are su+ra/visible, as are *any other #or*s o# *oral +ani% sele%tively #o%used onto
a%tors dee*ed to be re+resentative o# *oral *inorities. !learly, one=s +ositionin" behind or beyond the
thresholds o# #air visibility raises the +roble* o# the *ana"e*ent o# one=s so%ial i*a"e in one=s o,n ter*s.
)here#ore, ,hen +hiloso+hers and +oliti%al a%tivists su++ort the %lai*s #or re%o"nition +ut #or,ard by
*inority "rou+s, one should be a,are that the very so%ial relationshi+ +rodu%in" re%o"nition %an +rodu%e
denial o# re%o"nition, too. 9istortions in visibility lead to distortions in so%ial re+resentations, distortions
through visibility.
3t is no *ystery that the asy**etry bet,een seein" and bein" seen is a dee+ly "endered one o#ten, a
se0uali@ed one. 3n *odern ,estern so%iety, ty+i%ally, the *ale is the one ,ho loo.s, ,hile the #e*ale is the
one ,ho is loo.ed at. #or* o# do*ination and o++ression, and a "ood *easure o# *as%uline hy+o%risy, is
%learly +resent here. )he do*inant visual re+resentation o# ,o*en ,ants the* to be al,ays %ons%ious o#
their bein" seen, and the i*+ersonal "a@e o# the beholder is in #a%t a *ale "a@e (Mulvey, EF75). $edu%tion
is so*ethin" that ta.es +la%e in this se0uali@ed di*ension o# visibility. $i"ht is a sense that %an be violently
%lose to lust. 2elations o# visibility are o#ten e*bedded in voyeuris*. :a*eson (EFF3) radi%ali@es this
thou"ht in the state*ent that the ,hole visible is <essentially +orno"ra+hi%=. Visual %ulture, #ro* art history
to +ubli%ity, is #ull o# e0a*+les o# visual se0ual attra%tion (&er"er et al., EF72). More +oeti%ally, in the
%echerche Proust des%ribed the i*+ression o# a beauti#ul un.no,n ,e -ui%.ly "lan%e at in the %ity: <the
7ods #ro* the Gly*+us have %o*e do,n in the streets=. )his is one o# the hi"hest %elebrations o# the
*odern, i*+ersonal, sedu%tion. Ior is this ne%essarily a stri%tly ,estern #eelin": in Aurosa,a=s %ashomon
(EF50) the bandit re*e*bers the beauti#ul sa*urai=s lady he ,ill eventually ra+e ,ith these ,ords: <
"li*+se and she ,as "one. 3 thou"ht she ,as a "oddess.=
!on%erns #or di"nity and e-uality a+art, ,e should not be *isled into believin" that bein" ,at%hed is a
+assive behaviour. &e%ause the "lan%e is al,ays, to a %ertain e0tent, a t,o/,ay +ro%ess, seein" and bein"
seen si*ultaneously a##e%t the observed and the beholder. 3 ,ould venture to say that not only is there a
#or* o# seeing, but also a #or* o# being seen. 3# seein" is an arti%ulated a%tivity, bein" seen is no less so. 3n
this sense, 3 thin., the naturalist dol# Port*ann (EF52) des%ribed +atterns on ani*als= +lu*a"e as organs
for being seen. G#ten, the relationshi+ o# visibility is %ontrolled not by the one ,ho loo.s, but by the one
,ho is loo.ed at. 8ith Merleau/Ponty, 3 .no, that 3 a* ,at%hed by others even ,ithout ,at%hin" ba%.,
be%ause and inso#ar as 3 +er%eive *y body as the address o# "lan%es #ro* others.
Gn%e ,e see so%ial re%o"nition as e*bedded in a visibility #ield, ne, ,ays o# #ra*in" old +roble*s
o+en u+. )he lon"/standin" hu*anist *oral +rin%i+le re-uires that ,e hold a stron" distin%tion bet,een
hu*an bein"s on the one hand, and ani*als and thin"s on the other. &ut ,ithin the do*ain o# the visible
7
Published version in Current Sociology, May 2007, Vol. 55(3): 323342
this is not -uite easy. Pheno*ena o# ob1e%ti#i%ation o# sub1e%ts (+orno"ra+hy) and sub1e%ti#i%ation o#
ob1e%ts (#etishis*) are +ervasive, so that enhan%ed visibility re"i*es are dee+ly %hallen"in" #or *oral
syste*s based on well&ordered ontolo"ies. 8hen the distin%tion bet,een thin"s and hu*an bein"s %annot
be shar+ly deter*ined, ,ellordered ontolo"ies under"o a %risis, as re%ent debates on a%tor/net,or. theory
and the %ontested boundaries o# the hu*an sho, (#or a %riti%al ta.e, see Vandenber"he, 2002). t ti*es, the
+roble* o# ontolo"i%al hetero"eneity ,ithin the so%ial #ield has been arti%ulated in a %riti%al *ood. ?or
instan%e, 9ebord=s (EFC7) %on%e+t o# the s+e%ta%le not a set o# i*a"ines, but a so%ial relation *ediated by
i*a"es is a dtournement o# Mar0=s de#inition o# %a+ital, ,hi%h, in turn, is "rounded in the 6e"elian
*asterservant diale%ti% o# sub1e%ti#i%ation and alienation. )he *i0in" o# visible and invisible hu*an
relations is thus an i*+ortant di*ension #or assessin" ,hat ha++ens ,hen ,ell/ordered ontolo"ies are in
%risis or %olla+se.
Sites, Subjects and Effects
s a -uality, visibility %an be +redi%ated o# sites, sub1e%ts and e##e%ts. $o*e sites and so*e sub1e%ts are
*ore visible than others. &e%ause sites and sub1e%ts intera%t relationally, so%ial e##e%ts o# visibility de+end
on ,ho is *ore visible in ,hi%h site. J##e%ts of one=s visibility #eed ba%. #ro* and to e##e%ts in one=s
visibility.
Gne o# the *ain distin%tions in *odern ,estern so%io+oliti%al %ulture is the di%hoto*y bet,een the
+ubli% s+a%e, asso%iated ,ith visibility, and the +rivate s+a%e, asso%iated ,ith invisibility. Gn%e ,e @oo*
into *ore %ir%u*s%ribed ob1e%ts and situations, ho,ever, the distin%tion be%o*es +u@@lin". )oday, the
identi#i%ation o# the +ubli% ,ith the visible do*ain is +roble*ati%. Private s+a%es (e.". *edia and sho++in"
*alls) be%o*e lar"ely *ore visible than +ubli% ones, ,hile traditionally visible +ubli% s+a%es re%ede into
invisibility (e.". borin" +arlia*entary debates). 3n a sense, this is ,hat the ,hole anti/%a+italist *ove*ent=s
stru""le #or a ne, *odel o# so%iety is all about: to brin" ba%. the visibility (as +oliti%al %ontrol) o# the
+ubli% s+here.
)he %ity, and s+e%i#i%ally the *odern Juro+ean %a+ital, is a site o# visibility o# ,hi%h &audelaire and
&en1a*in "ave ,onder#ul des%ri+tions. )he fl'neur is en"a"ed in a +e%uliar visual en1oy*ent o# the %ity,
and the passages o##er a %o*+le0 arti%ulation o# visibilities to hi*, as they blur the se+aration o# outside
and inside, day/ti*e and ni"ht/ti*e, street and ho*e be#ore the s+lit bet,een sa#e, ,ar* communal s+a%e
versus dan"erous, %old urban s+a%e ($ennett, EF7B: LE3) "re, dra*ati%ally. s urban +lannin" desi"ns the
#ield o# urban visibility, +lanners o#ten #ind the*selves in the "a*e o# %reatin" ne, vistas, s%enarios and
+anora*as not by %han%e, all ter*s that derive #ro* the 3talian *odern history o# arts. !han"es in urban
visibility are due to the *ost diverse reasons. !hie#ly, these are not si*+ly aestheti% reasons: both EFth/
%entury 6auss*ann boulevards in Paris and 20th/%entury Via dei ?ori 3*+eriali in 2o*e are e0a*+les o#
urban visibility enhan%e*ent, %aused by a *i0 o# +ubli% order #un%tions, need #or better tra##i% %ir%ulation
and the desire to %reate a++ro+riate s%eno"ra+hies and settin"s #or pompa magna %elebrations and *ilitary
+arades. 2i%hard $ennett (EFF4: LB) e0+lored the birth o# the bodily *eta+hor o# the *odern %ity as a site
B
Published version in Current Sociology, May 2007, Vol. 55(3): 323342
o# circulation, ,hi%h e*er"ed in +arallel to 6arvey=s *edi%al dis%overy o# blood %ir%ulation. $in%e then,
ra+id transit and vehi%ular tra##i% "enerated a ne, ty+e o# urban vision (on the +oliti%al i*+li%ations o#
visual speed, see Virilio, EFBC).
Mass *edia are hi"h/visibility +la%es endo,ed ,ith the -uality o# %on#errin" visibility to the +eo+le
,ho 1oin the*. s a +ro%ess, visibility ,or.s instantly but e0tends in ti*e. 8hen you say to a #riend ,ho is
en1oyin" his E5/*inute %elebrity o# the 8arhol a"e <3 sa, you on )V yesterday=, this and other si*ilar
%o**uni%ations are +art o# ,hat ,e *ean by visibility. 8e *ay say that visibility has a flash and a halo: it
is both instant and it has a duration. )he #lash is +ointed on a +erson in a "iven +la%e, but at the sa*e ti*e it
,ea.ens, or even re*oves, the +er%e+tion o# the %onte0t. $o*eti*es, so%ial a%tors deliberately see. this
.ind o# se+arated e0+erien%e, su%h as tourists, ,hose travel and visual en1oy*ent are desi"ned to be a
te*+orary brea. #ro* their ordinary, daily settin"s (;rry, 2002). )ouristi% +la%es e0hibit a *edia/ty+e
visibility. )hey are %onsu*ed in the halo o# s+e%ta%ularis* "enerated by +ra%ti%es o# anti%i+atory
re+resentations o# en1oy*ent and *ediati% #lashes throu"h ,hi%h they are introdu%ed. )he %riti-ue o#
se+aratedness o# i*a"es #ro* li#e ,as the *ain ai* o# the %riti%al %on%e+t o# s+e%ta%le (9ebord, EFC7).
8hile bla*in" the s+e%ta%le has be%o*e a %o**on+la%e, it has been o#ten overvie,ed that se+aration is
+re%isely ,hat enables the e*otional syn%hroni@ation o# all vie,ers. 2e%ently, Mathiesen (EFF7) has
analysed the vie,er so%iety in ter*s o# visibility %ones. 6e %alls <syno+ti%is*= the devi%e ,here the *any
,at%h the #e,. )he #e, ,ho are ,at%hed as <the s+e%ta%le= are in any %ase *ediated by re+resentations.
Visibility %urdles into re+resentations. 3n the absen%e o# dissonant *essa"es, re+resentations tend to
settle do,n and stabili@e the*selves. )hat is ,hy the issue o# a%%ess to the +la%es o# visibility is a %entral
+oliti%al -uestion. )o a%%ess these +la%es is the +re%ondition #or havin" a voi%e in the +rodu%tion o#
re+resentations. More +re%isely, it is not si*+ly <a%%ess= that *atters, but rather the styles and *odes o#
a%%ess. 3t is not si*+ly true that i# 3 a* dise*+o,ered or a so%iety=s outsider, then 3 a* invisible. 2ather,
,hat ha++ens is that 3 a%%ess visibility +la%es in ,ays that are lar"ely or %o*+letely out o# *y %ontrol
(!ha*+a"ne, EFF3). :ust thin. o# re+resentations, narratives and i*a"es o# starvin" +eo+le and %ri*inals:
the ty+e o# #eelin"s they usually arouse in the beholders (*er%y, hate and so on) are %o*+letely deta%hed
#ro* the #eelin"s o# the re+resented +eo+le, be%ause the latter are 1ust seen and re+resented, but have no say
on their o,n i*a"e.
Visibility breeds identi#i%ation and *a.es it +ossible. 3n this res+e%t, ,e should a%%ount #or at least t,o
di##erent ty+es o# identi#i%ation: identi#i%ation by so%ial %ate"ory, and identi#i%ation by individual #eatures.
$urveillan%e is, o# %ourse, an a%tivity that "oes throu"h a +ro%edure o# individual identi#i%ation it is
i*+ortant to "et the ri"ht +erson but then, in #a%t, it is ai*ed at so%ial %lassi#i%ation o# +eo+le, and, *ore
+re%isely, a ty+e o# %lassi#i%ation that is essentially "rounded in the summa divisio bet,een sa#e and
dan"erous sub1e%ts. !onse-uently, in the a%tivities o# surveillan%e and %ontrol, individual identi#i%ation is
instru*ental to a #urther sta"e o# identi#i%ation by so%ial %ate"ory. 3ndividual identi#i%ation, on the %ontrary,
is the end/+oint o# other .inds o# +ro%esses, su%h as that o# re%o"ni@in" a V3P or a *edia +erson ,hi%h
o#ten a%tivates a s+e%i#i% <%elebrity si"htin"= intera%tion #ra*e (?erris, 2004).
F
Published version in Current Sociology, May 2007, Vol. 55(3): 323342
dvertise*ent is an a%tivity that %onsists in +rodu%in" hi"h/visibility ob1e%ts. dvertise*ent %an thus
be understood as a strate"y dire%tly ai*ed not so *u%h at *a.in" you buy so*ethin", but rather at havin"
you loo.in" at %ertain thin"s rather than others. )he +oint is enhan%in" the visibility o# %ertain ob1e%ts
real or #an%ied as su%h, i.e. not ne%essarily +rodu%ts, but also li#estyles, #eelin"s, et%. vis/a/vis others.
8hat %ounts is the re%o"nition o# "iven ob1e%ts. )his is a (estalt *ission. 3n order to ,or., advertise*ent
*ust be able to +rodu%e i**ediate individual identi#i%ation o# a #i"ure on a ba%."round: <the +ubli%ity
belon"s to the *o*ent= (&er"er et al., EF72: E2F), and its ob1e%t belon"s to the #lash/and/halo +resent.
model %an be de#ined as so*ethin" or so*eone ,ho is endo,ed ,ith visibility. ?or a *odel to e0ist,
it has to be be#ore everybody=s eyes. $i*ultaneously, the *odel also tends to be de#ined in *oral ter*s. 3t
ins+ires behaviour and attitude. 3t is an e0a*+le to #ollo,. &ut the t,o as+e%ts %an easily be at odds ,ith
ea%h other. )he %ult o# the visible +ersonality, the %elebrity, sho,s a *odel at ,or.. Iot only is a %elebrity
visible, but she or he %an also lend +art o# that visibility to others. )he *odel is hard to i"nore. 3t is be#ore
everybody=s eyes. &ut at the sa*e ti*e, the idea o# imitatio, ,hen re#erred to a s+e%i#i% *odel, *ay %reate
uneasiness, an0iety or, ,orse, stron", vehe*ent #eelin"s. Visibility attra%ts adoration and hatred, so*eti*es
#ate#ully %o*bined. !onsider the *orbid relationshi+ bet,een the #an and the star. 3n so*e +arti%ular
+sy%holo"i%ally unstable but hi"hly s+e%ta%ular situations, a #an +re%isely be%ause she or he is a <#anati%=
*ay end u+ .illin" her or his *ost +re%ious ob1e%t o# adoration, to subtra%t it #ro* visibility, or to +ro1e%t
it into a higher visibility. 3n #a%t, it is not only the *odel ,ho is endo,ed ,ith visibility. )he monster is,
too and al*ost by de#inition: monstrum, sho,ed. &oth the *odel and the *onster are visible, *ar.ed, out
o# the ordinary. lthou"h their +resen%e is nu*eri%ally irrelevant, visibility %on#ers on the* a %entral
sy*boli% #un%tion everybody is e0+li%itly or i*+li%itly a,are o#. Media *odels #ollo, a +e%uliar
ti*in". )he -ui%. rise and #all o# E5/*inute <#ill/in= %elebrities %an be e0+lained as the result o# a trade/o##
bet,een t,o %ontradi%tory visibility #or%es: the ne%essity o# a rene,al in the hall o# #a*e, on the one hand,
and the #a%t that attention o# the +ubli% is a s%ar%e resour%e, ,hi%h #o%uses only on a bun%h o# visually
easily re%o"ni@able *edia +ersons, on the other hand. )he out%o*e o# this tension is the de#inition o# a
#ield ,ith a nu%leus o# %ore, lon"/standin" %elebrities, surrounded by a belt o# *ore or less e+isodi% V3Ps.
)hus, visibility is a +ro+erty that %an be used to divide *ar.ed and un*ar.ed +ersons. Gn%e a ,ay o#
*ar.in" and dividin" +eo+le is set u+, than.s to a #e, very %lear, e0%e+tional %ases, the resultin"
classification is a tool that %an be a++lied to every %ase. 8hereas the *odel and the *onster are #e, in
nu*ber, althou"h +ervasive in visibility, %lassi#i%ations ,or. routinely ,ith bi" nu*bers as they tend to
be%o*e invisible. 2a%is*, and es+e%ially institutionali@ed ra%is*, %reates a +oliti%s o# treat*ent #or visible
di##eren%es. ?or ra%is* to ,or., di##eren%es need #irst o# all to be *ade visible, ,hi%h *ay not be that
si*+le. )his is a%hieved throu"h %lassi#i%atory tools. Gn%e set u+, these tools ,or. best ,hen they be%o*e
naturali)ed (&o,.er and $tar, EFFF4 #or an ethno"ra+hi% a%%ount see ?arou"h, 200C), invisible to those
,ho e*+loy the*: the instru*ent that %reates visibility has to be *ade or itsel# .e+t invisible.
Deviance and Control
E0
Published version in Current Sociology, May 2007, Vol. 55(3): 323342
3# ,e a%%e+t that devian%e is a relational *oral -uality (9ur.hei*, EFB2), a deviant a%tion e0ists only i# it is
#ra*ed on a visible threshold o# *oral di##eren%e. Visible and invisible so%ial a%tion de+ends on ,hi%h
sub1e%ts a%t in ,hi%h +la%es. 9evian%e, +oli%in" and so%ial %ontrol hel+ to illustrate the +oint. Poli%e
sto++in"s and arrests o# +eo+le have been %riti%i@ed as unchec*ed power ($tribo+oulos, 2003), in the sense
that the +o,er o# arrest and the %riteria and %lassi#i%ations that su+ervise its +ra%ti%e #or* an invisible
+o,er. )his sub/+o,er is lo%ated belo, the lo,er threshold o# visibility (#or a visualist
ethno*ethodolo"i%al a%%ount o# this a%tivity, see $a%.s, EF72). 3t #inds its natural tar"et in deviant
behaviours, i.e. behaviours that are *ar.ed vis/a/vis a nor* (the nor*al, the un*ar.ed). t the sa*e ti*e,
+oli%e are the*selves hi"hly visible sub1e%ts: not only do they loo. at +eo+le in their sear%h #or deviant
behaviours4 they are also loo.ed at by +eo+le (see, #or e0a*+le, Pa+er*an, 2003). Visibility o# a%tion is
%onne%ted to so*e sort o# e+emplarity, +ositive or ne"ative as *ay be. Jvery sin"le *ove +oli%e *a.e, or
better, their behaviour as a ,hole, is %onne%ted to e0e*+larity, or la%. thereo#. 3n liberal de*o%ra%ies,
+oli%e brutality %o*es as sho%.in" ,hen it is do%u*ented in sin"ular, s+e%i#i% %ases, so #ar as the
+resu*+tion holds that it is neither ,ides+read nor ordinary. &ut ,hen the issue o# the +oli%in" *ethods
disa++ears #ro* the visible +ubli% debate, ,hen the *aintenan%e o# order is %o**issioned to +oli%e under a
no/*atter/,hat %lause, the e0e*+larity o# violen%e +reludes an entirely ne, .ind o# re"i*e.
Visibility is a double/ed"ed s,ord: it %an be e*+o,erin" as ,ell as dise*+o,erin". Gne e0a*+le o#
the +erverse e##e%ts o# *edia visibility is o##ered by the +oliti%al s%andal ()ho*+son, 2000). )he s%andal is
a *e%hanis* ,hereby so*e a%tions, behaviours or state o# a##airs that ,ere assu*ed to re*ain invisible are
suddenly revealed to a ,ide +ubli%. &esides, the *ore visible it be%o*es that the revealed state o# a##airs
,as ori"inally *eant or arran"ed to re*ain invisible i.e. the *ore evident that there is an atte*+t to hide
so*ethin" the bi""er the i*+a%t revelations ,ill have. 9urin" +oliti%al s%andals, ,e have a .ind o#
maddened visibility, ,hereby +eo+le ,ho are -uite a%%usto*ed to bein" visible, and indeed, +eo+le ,ho
have built their %areer and #ortune on bein" visible, #ind the*selves suddenly haunted by visibility, ,ith
so*eti*es tra"i%o*i%, i# not "rotes-ue e##e%ts. 8hat *ade their stren"th is no, their *ost i*+la%able
ene*y: %on%entrations o# visibility/as/+o,er al,ays attra%t their hi"hly visible ne*esis o# do,n"radin"
and <#all=.
)his ty+e o# a*bivalen%e sho,s u+ in di##erent %onte0ts. 8hile the sear%h #or visibility is in *any %ases
a sear%h #or so%ial re%o"nition visibility as e*+o,er*ent ?ou%ault=s thesis o# the insur"en%e o# the
dis%i+linary so%iety tells -uite a di##erent story. ?or %riti%al theorists, visibility o# +ubli%ity ob1e%ts and
*edia +eo+le is the #li+ side o# dis%i+line and %ontrol. thread o# antio%ular%entris*, :ay re*inds us, has
#o%used on the dise*+o,erin" e##e%ts o# visibility. 2e%ent resear%hes on surveillan%e and the te%hnolo"ies
o# %ontrol, too, e0+lore this .ind o# e##e%t (5yon, 200E). )ra%in" the ori"in o# the ,ord <surveillan%e= in
%lini%al lan"ua"e, the dis%i+linary thesis reveals a %o*+letely di##erent *eanin" o# bein" seen and ,at%hed:
no lon"er re%o"nition, but sub1u"ation, i*+osition o# %ondu%ts, *eans o# %ontrol. 3n the dis%i+linary
so%iety, visibility *eans dise*+o,er*ent. Ia*ely, <visibility is a tra+= (?ou%ault, EF77). )he *ere #a%t o#
bein" a,are o# one=s o,n visibility status and not the #a%t o# bein" under a%tual %ontrol e##e%tively
EE
Published version in Current Sociology, May 2007, Vol. 55(3): 323342
in#luen%es one=s behaviour.
&entha*=s Pano+ti%on, as analysed by ?ou%ault, is a *e%hanis* o# visibility. &ut ,hat is *ost
i*+ortant #or its e##e%tive #un%tionin" is not only the first&order asymmetry o# vision bet,een the "uard and
the in*ate. 3t is the ,hole *e%hanis* o# %ontrol that *ust re*ain invisible. )hat is ,hy 9eleu@e (EFBB)
re*ar.ed that the Pano+ti%on is in #a%t a lo"i%al dia"ra* o# +o,er rather than a *ere +hysi%al visual
settin". 8hat 9eleu@e do,nsi@ed, ho,ever, is the #a%t that the dia"ra* itsel# e0hibits +re%isely be%ause
o# its invisibility a *e%hanis* o# visibility. 3ndeed, the dia"ra* %onsists in a second&order asymmetry o#
visibility, bet,een those ,ho are a,are o# the e0isten%e o# the dia"ra* and those ,ho are una,are o# it.
2e%ent resear%h on surveillan%e has built on ?ou%ault=s analysis o# the %a+illarity o# +o,er, but it has
also so*eho, trans#or*ed its startin" +oint. 7ranted that surveillan%e %an be des%ribed as a s+e%i#i%
*ana"e*ent o# relative visibilities o# +eo+le, it has been ar"ued that %onte*+orary so%iety is %hara%teri@ed
by the #a%t that surveillan%e be%o*es *ethodi%al, syste*ati% and auto*ati% ($ta+les, 20004 Virilio, EFF4),
rather than <dis%ontinuous=, as ,as the %ase o# the dis%i+linary *ethod. Io lon"er virtual %ontrol, but
actual %ontrol, *ade +ossible by ne, te%hnolo"ies. !losed/%ir%uit televisions and video %a*eras these
s*all, *ortal drea*s o# o*nis%ien%e have al,ays #as%inated the i*a"ination o# s%holars. nd not only
s%holars. 3 +ersonally re*e*ber *ore than one anti%a+italist de*onstration ,here one o# the %ul*inatin"
+oints ,as so*eone %li*bin" u+ to a ban.=s !!)V installed ,ell above the street level in order to +ut a
thi%. bla%. +lasti% ba" around it in a .ind o# +ost*odern version o# the blindin" o# !y%lo+s.
)he +ervasiveness o# visual surveillan%e raises the *atter o# visibility at a *eta/level: ,hi%h data
a*on" the *any %olle%ted are to be *ade visible( !!)V #il*ed several terrorists be#ore their a%tions, but
sadly these data be%a*e visible, distin"uishable a*on" the *any, only e+ post factum. 8hat is also stri.in"
about video surveillan%e is that its non/re%i+ro%al "a@e leads to a -ualitatively di##erent ,ay o# seein". )his
is the reason ,hy surveyed +eo+le, inso#ar as they %annot loo. ba%. and they %annot establish any eye/to/
eye %onta%t, al,ays loo. sus+e%t to a %ertain e0tent, i# not %ul+able, #or the very #a%t o# bein" loo.ed at one/
,ay in a *ode o# surveillan%e. More radi%ally, #ollo,in" $i**el=s insi"ht on the re%i+ro%ity o# the eye/to/
eye relation, they are not even #ully hu*an. 3nherent in the one/,ay "a@e is a .ind o# dehu*ani@ation o# the
observed and +ossibly, althou"h indire%tly, o# the beholder, too.
Visibility is not si*+ly about video %a*eras and the te%hnolo"ies o# i*a"e trans*ission. ?or 5yon
(2004), %onte*+orary surveillan%e is a %o*+le0 a%tivity #o%used on the tra%.in" o# in#or*ation: relyin" on
advan%ed te%hnolo"ies, surveillan%e be%o*es *ore and *ore abstra%t, a++arently unrelated to hu*an
bein"s and their biolo"i%al eyes. )ra%.in" #lo,s is no, the %ru%ial +oint. 9eleu@e (EFF0) #irst s+o.e o# a
transition #ro* the dis%i+linary so%iety to the <so%iety o# %ontrol=, a ne, s%enario ,here en%losed
institutions and their lo"i% are su+erseded by ne, #or*ations: the %or+oration has re+la%ed the #a%tory4 the
individual is substituted by a ne, bein" %alled the dividual4 and #inally, the password, rather than the old
slo"an, be%o*es the %entral tool o# %ontrol. $urveillan%e is no lon"er interested in ,at%hin" +eo+le as it is
in tra%.in" *ove*ents (not 1ust o# +eo+le, but o# *oney, %hoi%es, %usto*s brie#ly, o# in#or*ation) in a
,ay that enables surveillan%e a"en%ies to di##erentially re"ulate a%%ess and denial o# a%%ess to s+e%i#i%
E2
Published version in Current Sociology, May 2007, Vol. 55(3): 323342
s+a%es #or s+e%i#i% sub1e%ts. )he ,hole +ro%ess shi#ts #ro* bein" #o%used on +ersons to bein" #o%used on
codes. &orro,in" #ro* 9eleu@e and 7uattari (EFB7), 6a""erty and Jri%son (2000) have re%ently +ro+osed
%allin" this ne, ty+e o# *i0ed net,or./li.e %ontrol the <surveillant asse*bla"e=. )he asse*bla"e has a
%o*+osite %entraland/ +oly%entri% %hara%ter. 3t #un%tions #ro* above as ,ell as #ro* belo,. t the sa*e
ti*e an <a%tuarial "a@e=, a stru%tural visual re"i*e o# threat +er%e+tion ,hi%h %ross%uts +oliti%s, +ubli%
sa#ety %on%erns, urban +lannin" and *edia, e*er"es (?eld*an 2005).
)he vie, #ro* above re*ains, ho,ever, the do*inant i*a"e o# %ontrol. :a*es !. $%ott (EFFB) has
%riti%ally analysed the develo+*ent o# a <"a@e o# the $tate= in *odern %ountries. 3n the do*ain o#
"overnan%e, a ,ay o# seein" +re+ares a ,ay o# a%tin" and a%tively intervenin" u+on reality. )he %entralist
"a@e o# the $tate, $%ott ar"ues, is an i*+overished one, ,hi%h #ilters the *ulti+li%ity o# so%ial li#e. 3t %uts
do,n lived e0+erien%e to its o,n Pro%rustean bed, in order to enhan%e le"ibility in the inter+retation o#
+heno*ena. $o%ial en"ineerin", su++orted by <hi"h *odernist= ideolo"y, has %arried out an e0+ro+riation
o# lo%al, "rounded e0+erien%e. %%ordin" to $%ott, the si"ht o# %entral e0e%utive +o,er is narro,ed do,n to
#un%tional *ani+ulation and the i*+osition o# uni#or*ity u+on the +o+ulation. )hus, le"ibility o# so%ial
+heno*ena is o#ten a%hieved at the e0+ense o# the re%o"nition o# their ri%hness, so that one sin"le "a@e,
analo"ous to a <vie, #ro* no,here=, hides the *ulti+li%ity o# real "a@es.
)he dis%i+linary dia"ra*, +ra%ti%es o# %onte*+orary %ontrol and the "a@e o# the $tate belon" to a *u%h
older tradition, that o# the arcana imperii, ,here +o,er is stri%tly asso%iated ,ith invisibility (&obbio,
EFFF4 !anetti, EF73). 3n the elitist tradition o# the arcana, ,hat really %ounts is the obs%ure nu%leus ,here
thin"s are dis+osed, the un.no,n %ha*ber ,here the +ro"ra**er is dra,in" the al"orith*. 8hereas
*edia/ty+e visibility, as ,ell as the ,hole visibility/as/re%o"nition, are "rounded in the idea that visibility
besto,s +o,er, the arcana imperii tradition starts #ro* the o++osite +re*ise that invisibility stren"thens
+o,er. )he idea o# a lin.a"e bet,een +o,er and invisibility lies at the basis o# every %ons+ira%y theory,
too. 3nterestin"ly, ,hereas %ons+ira%y thin.in" used to be traditionally dis*issed by a%ade*i% s%holars as
*erely +atholo"i%al, re%ent literature has been revaluin" its rationality (see Pratt, 2003). )he realists, in
+arti%ular, %lai* that %ons+ira%y theories *irror a sense o# +o,erlessness and that, i# +eo+le no,adays #eel
+o,erless, it is be%ause, ulti*ately, they a%tually are. 8hile the +oli%e are visible, ,e also .no, or
*aybe 1ust +resu*e to .no, that the *ost i*+ortant investi"ative ,or.s are %arried on under%over (on
se%ret +oli%e, see $tove, 2003). )he *ost +u@@lin" %ases are there#ore intelli"en%e %o**uni%ations e.".
about terroris* *ade available #or the *asses. 8hat are ,e to *a.e o# the*( 9oes it *ean that a#ter all
in de*o%rati% re"i*es even intelli"en%e %annot be thorou"hly se%ret, or are they the +er#e%t instan%e o# the
su+re*e imperium=s 1o.e(
<$e%re%y lies at the heart o# +o,er= (!anetti, EF73: 253). )hus, +o,er %an be %on%eived as a #or* o#
e0ternal visibility (visibility o# e##e%ts) asso%iated ,ith internal invisibility (invisibility o# identi#i%ation):
the e##e%ts o# +o,er are visible to everyone, but ,hat +o,er is in its essen%e, ,here it is really lo%ated, ,ill
not be dis%losed. sy**etries in visibility are asy**etries o# +o,er in a #urther *eanin" besides that o#
surveillan%e. )he +o,er#ul is at the verte0 o# a one/,ay %one o# visibility: he or she ,at%hes but %annot be
E3
Published version in Current Sociology, May 2007, Vol. 55(3): 323342
,at%hed by nor*al eyes. 6e or she also di##ers #ro* &entha*=s "uardian inso#ar as he or she is not even
interested in ,at%hin" the others, ,ho are *eanin"less and uninterestin" in his or her eyes. 3n the endin"
s%ene o# 5ars von )rier=s "ogville (2003), the boss "ets the %urtains o# his %ar o+ened, 1ust a#ter he has
ordered the slau"hter o# the ,hole villa"e. 6e ,ill be visible no,, but there ,ill no lon"er be anyone there
to see hi*.
Ionetheless, se%re%y lies not only at the %ore o# +o,er, but also at the %ore o# the +ossibility o# es%a+in"
and o++osin" it. !onsider, 1ust to *ention a #e, very hetero"eneous e0a*+les, the se%re%y o# votes, the
#li"ht #ro* +rison, %ounter/%ultural under"round resistan%e and the #or*s o# hidden resistan%e so ,ell
des%ribed by $%ott (EFF0). ll these +ra%ti%es develo+ ,ithin invisibility, ,hi%h they absolutely need in
order to be e##e%tive to their +ur+oses. 3n short, ,e have to ad*it that +o,er does not rest univo%ally ,ith
seein" or ,ith bein" seen. 2ather, it is the style in ,hi%h seein" and bein" seen ta.e +la%e that %arries the
*ost i*+ortant %onse-uen%es. )he e0er%ise o# +o,er is al,ays an e0er%ise in a%tivatin" sele%tive
inHvisibilities. 3n the %ase o# %a+ital e0e%utions, a series o# %are#ul *easures are +ut in +la%e to *a.e the
hu*an bein" that is bein" e0e%uted invisible as hu*an bein". )he very e0e%ution is an invisible, al*ost
se%ret event in *any %ountries and states ,here the death +enalty still e0ists. 3t is %are#ully .e+t a,ay #ro*
si"ht. )his is a +arado0i%al by+rodu%t o# Iorbert Jlias=s civili)ing process. Parado0i%al be%ause %ivili@ation
i*+lies a redu%tion o# violen%e rather than its hidden %ontinuation, its <%ontinuation ,ith other *eans=. &ut
let us reverse the +ers+e%tive: i# this .ind o# invisibility is sinister, visibility *i"ht not be less a++allin".
8ould +eo+le "o to ,at%h e0e%utions i# they ,ere *ade +ubli% today( More i*+ortantly, how many
,ould( 8hat does the *a1ority a%%e+t, ,hat does it ,ish to see( 3# you thin. this ,orld is horrible, it *ay
a%tually be be%ause you haven=t seen the others . . .
Conclusion
My ar"u*ent #or ado+tin" visibility as a #ully entitled so%iolo"i%al %ate"ory has been based on an
e0+loration o# so*e e0e*+lary %ases in the ,ide ran"e o# so%ial +heno*ena ,hose understandin" %an be
nuan%ed, and enhan%ed, ,hen ,e #ra*e the* ,ithin the +ro+osed %ate"ory. 3ts s+e%i#i% arti%ulations *ay
be use#ul to underta.e #uture resear%h. 3n this arti%le, the relational, strate"i% and +ro%essual #eatures o#
visibility have been identi#ied and des%ribed in their interse%tions. )a.en to"ether, they see* to invite us to
e0+lore visibility as a #ield. )his is an i*+ersonal, so%ial #ield ,here sub1e%ts and sites o# visibility +lay
their role and %ontribute to deter*ine e##e%ts inHo# re%i+ro%al visibility.
t the substantive level, there are at least three di##erent ty+es o# visibility/ s%he*e. )he so%ial/ty+e is a
#unda*entally enablin" resour%e, lin.ed to re%o"nition, at least ,hen it #its ,ithin so*e thresholds o# #air
visibility, beyond ,hi%h distortion e##e%ts a++ear. )he *edia/ty+e, althou"h it *ay interse%t ,ith the #irst
ty+e, tends to ,or. a%%ordin" to a #lash/halo *e%hanis*, ,hereby sub1e%ts are isolated #ro* their ori"inal
%onte0t and +ro1e%ted into a di##erent one endo,ed ,ith its o,n lo"i% and rules. ?inally, the %ontrol/ty+e
trans#or*s visibility into a strate"i% resour%e #or re"ulation (as in ?ou%ault=s surveillan%e *odel) or
sele%tivity and strati#i%ation (as in 9eleu@e=s so%iety o# %ontrol *odel), or both (as in 6a""erty and
E4
Published version in Current Sociology, May 2007, Vol. 55(3): 323342
Jri%son=s surveillant asse*bla"e).
%%ordin"ly, the relationshi+ bet,een +o,er and visibility is %o*+le0: +o,er does not rest univo%ally
either ,ith visibility or ,ith invisibility. 3n the *oral do*ain, a #unda*ental tension bet,een re%o"nition
and %ontrol has e*er"ed. &oth +ra%ti%es are %onne%ted to visibility. 3n other ,ords, visibility is not
%orrelated in any strai"ht#or,ard ,ay to re%o"nition and %ontrol, or to any s+e%i#i% *oral value. s su%h, it
does not %onstitute anythin" inherently liberatin", nor, %onversely, does it ne%essarily i*+ly o++ression.
&ut, in the end, isn=t this o+en ran"e o# +ossibilities ,hat ,e e0+e%t #ro* a su##i%iently "eneral des%ri+tive
and inter+retive so%ial s%ienti#i% %ate"ory(
References
"a*ben, 7ior"io (EFFB) ,omo Sacer- Sovereign #ower and .are /ife, trans. 9aniel 6eller/2oa@en. $tan#ord, !:
$tan#ord ;niversity Press. (Gri". +ub. EFF5.)
&er"er, :ohn, &lo*ber", $ven, ?o0, !hris, 9ibb, Mi%hael and 6ollis, 2i%hard (EF72) 0ays of Seeing. 5ondon: &&!
and Pen"uin &oo.s.
&obbio, Iorberto (EFFF) Teoria generale della politica. )orino: Jinaudi.
&o,.er, 7eo##rey !. and $tar, $usan 5ei"h (EFFF) Sorting Things 1ut- Classification and its Conse2uences.
!a*brid"e, M: M3) Press.
!anetti, Jlias (EF73) Crowds and #ower, trans. !arol $te,art. Ie, Mor.: !ontinuu*. (Gri". +ub. EFC0.)
!ha*+a"ne, Patri%. (EFF3) <5a Vision *Ndiati-ue=, in Pierre &ourdieu (ed.) /a !is3re du monde, ++. CE7F. Paris:
$euil.
!lassen, !onstan%e (EFF3) 0orlds of Sense- 4+ploring the Senses in ,istory and 5cross Cultures. 5ondon and Ie,
Mor.: 2outled"e.
!lassen, !onstan%e (EFF7) <?oundations #or an nthro+olo"y o# $enses=, International Social Science 6ournal
O53O(E53): 40EE2.
9ebord, 7uy (EFC7) /a Socit du spectacle. Paris: !ha*+ 5ibre.
9eleu@e, 7illes (EFBB) 7oucault, trans. and ed. $ePn 6and. 5ondon: thlone. (Gri". +ub. EFBC.)
9eleu@e, 7illes (EFF0) <Posts%ri+t on the $o%ieties o# !ontrol=, /85utre ournal E4 at:
,,,.nadir.or"HnadirHar%hivHnet@.riti.Hso%ietyo#%ontrol.ht*l
9eleu@e, 7illes and 7uattari, ?Nli0 (EFB7) 5 Thousand #lateaus. Minnea+olis: ;niversity o# Minnesota Press. (Gri".
+ub. EFB0.)
9ur.hei*, Q*ile (EFB2) The %ules of the Sociological !ethod, ed. $teven 5u.es, trans. 8. 9. 6alls. Ie, Mor.: )he
?ree Press. (Gri". +ub. EBF4.)
?arou"h, $teven 9. (200C) <&elievin" is $eein": )he Matri0 o# Vision and 8hite Mas%ulinities=, 6ournal of
Contemporary 4thnography 35(E): 5EB3.
?eld*an, llen (2005) <Gn the %tuarial 7a@e. ?ro* FHEE to bu 7hraib=, Cultural Studies EF(2): 20322C.
?erris, Aerry G. (2004) <$eein" and &ein" $een: )he Moral Grder o# !elebrity $i"htin"s=, 6ournal of Contemporary
4thnography 33(3): 23CC4.
?eyerabend, Paul A. (EF7B) 5gainst !ethod. 5ondon: Verso.
?Kti, Veroni-ue M. (2003) 9ision8s Invisibles- #hilosophical 4+plorations. Ie, Mor.: $tate ;niversity o# Ie, Mor.
Press.
?ou%ault, Mi%hel (EF72) The 5rchaeology of :nowledge. 5ondon: 2outled"e. (Gri". +ub. EFCF.)
E5
Published version in Current Sociology, May 2007, Vol. 55(3): 323342
?ou%ault, Mi%hel (EF73) The .irth of the Clinic- 5n 5rchaeology of !edical #erception, trans. . M. $heridan $*ith.
5ondon: )avisto%.. (Gri". +ub. EFC3.)
?ou%ault, Mi%hel (EF77) "iscipline and #unish- The .irth of the #rison. 5ondon: Pen"uin &oo.s. (Gri". +ub. EF75.)
7il*an, $ander 5. (EFF5) ,ealth and Illness- Images of "ifference. 5ondon: 2ea.tion &oo.s.
7o##*an, Jrvin" (EF7E) %elations in #ublic- !icrostudies of the #ublic 1rder. Ie, Mor.: &asi% &oo.s.
7ood,in, !harles (EFFC) <)rans+arent Vision=, in Jlinor G%hs, J*anuel . $%he"lo## and $andra . )ho*+son (eds.)
Interaction and (rammar; ++. 370404. !a*brid"e: !a*brid"e ;niversity Press.
6a""erty, Aevin and Jri%son, 2i%hard (2000) <)he $urveillant sse*bla"e=, .ritish 6ournal of Sociology 5E(4): C05
22.
6e"el, 7eor" 8ilhel* ?riedri%h (EF77) #henomenology of Spirit, trans. . V. Miller. G0#ord: G0#ord ;niversity Press.
(Gri". +ub. EB07.)
6o,es, 9avid (ed.) (EFFE) The 9arieties of Sensual 4+perience- 5 Sourceboo* in the 5nthropology of the Senses.
)oronto: ;niversity o# )oronto Press.
6o,es, 9avid (2003) Sensual %elations- 4ngaging the Senses in Culture and Social Theory. nn rbor: ;niversity o#
Mi%hi"an Press.
:a*eson, ?redri% (EFF3) Signatures of the 9isible. 5ondon: 2outled"e.
:ay, Martin (EFF3) "owncast 4yes- The "enigration of 9ision in Twentieth&Century 7rench Thought. &er.eley:
;niversity o# !ali#ornia Press.
5yon, 9avid (200E) Surveillance Society- !onitoring 4veryday /ife. &u%.in"ha*: G+en ;niversity Press.
5yon, 9avid (2004) <7lobali@in" $urveillan%e: !o*+arative and $o%iolo"i%al Pers+e%tives=, International Sociology
EF(2): E354F.
M%5uhan, Marshall (EFC4) Understanding !edia- The 4+tension of !an. Ie, Mor.: M%7ra,/6ill.
Mathiesen, )ho*as (EFF7) <)he Vie,er $o%iety: Mi%hel ?ou%ault=s RPano+ti%onS 2evisited=, Theoretical Criminology
E(2): 2E534.
Mead, 7eor"e 6. (EF5F) !ind; Self and Society- 7rom the Standpoint of a Social .ehaviorist, EEth edn. !hi%a"o, 35:
;niversity o# !hi%a"o Press. (Gri". +ub. EF34.)
Merleau/Ponty, Mauri%e (EFCB) The 9isible and the Invisible. Jvanston, 35: Iorth,estern ;niversity Press. (Gri". +ub.
EFC4.)
Mulvey, 5aura (EF75) <Visual Pleasure and Iarrative !ine*a=, Screen EC(3): CEB.
Gn", 8alter :. (EF77) Interfaces of the 0ord- Studies in the 4volution of Consciousness and Culture. 3tha%a, IM:
!ornell ;niversity Press.
Pa+er*an, Patri%ia (2003) <$urveillan%e ;nder"round: )he ;ni#or* as an 3ntera%tion 9evi%e=, 4thnography 4(3): 3F7
4EF.
Port*ann, dol# (EF52) 5nimal 7orms and #atterns- 5 Study on the 5ppearance of 5nimals. 5ondon: ?aber and ?aber.
Pratt, 2ay (2003) <)heori@in" !ons+ira%y=, Theory and Society 32(2): 2557E.
2a1ara*, Pre* Au*ar and 7rundy/8arr, !arl (2004) <)he 3rre"ular Mi"rant as ,omo Sacer: Mi"ration and 9etention
in ustralia, Malaysia, and )hailand=, International !igration 42(E): 33C4.
$a%.s, 6arvey (EF72) <Iotes on Poli%e ssess*ent o# Moral !hara%ter=, in 9. $udno, (ed.) Studies in Social
Interaction, ++. 2B0F3. Ie, Mor.: )he ?ree Press.
$%ott, :a*es !. (EFF0) "omination and the 5rts of %esistance- ,idden Transcripts. Ie, 6aven, !): Male ;niversity
Press.
$%ott, :a*es !. (EFFB) Seeing /i*e a State- ,ow Certain Schemes to Improve the ,uman Condition ,ave 7ailed. Ie,
6aven, !): Male ;niversity Press.
$ennett, 2i%hard (EF7B) The 7all of #ublic !an. Ie, Mor.: Vinta"e &oo.s.
$ennett, 2i%hard (EFF4) 7lesh and Stone- The .ody and the City in 0estern Civili)ation. 5ondon: ?aber and ?aber.
$i**el, 7eor" (EFCF) <$o%iolo"y o# the $enses: Visual 3ntera%tion=, ada+ted Jn"lish trans. in 2obert J. Par. and
EC
Published version in Current Sociology, May 2007, Vol. 55(3): 323342
Jrnest 8. &ur"ess, Introduction to the Science of Sociology, 3rd edn. !hi%a"o, 35: ;niversity o# !hi%a"o Press.
(Gri". +ub. EF0B.)
$onta", $usan (2003) %egarding the #ain of 1thers. Ie, Mor.: ?arrar, $traus and 7irou0.
$ta+les, 8illia* 7. (2000) 4veryday Surveillance- 9igilance and 9isibility in #ostmodern /ife. 5anha*, M9:
2o,*an and 5ittle#ield.
$tove, 2obert :. (2003) The Unsleeping 4ye- Secret #olice and their 9ictims. $an ?ran%is%o: Jn%ounter &oo.s.
$tribo+oulos, :a*es (2003) <;n%he%.ed Po,er: )he !onstitutional 2e"ulation o# rrest 2e%onsidered=, !c(ill /aw
6ournal 4B(2): 225F4.
$udno,, 9avid (EF72) <)e*+oral Para*eters o# 3nter+ersonal Gbservation=, in 9. $udno, (ed.) Studies in Social
Interaction, ++. 25F7F. Ie, Mor.: )he ?ree Press.
)aylor, !harles (EFBF) Sources of the Self- The !a*ing of the !odern Identity. !a*brid"e: !a*brid"e ;niversity
Press.
)aylor, !harles (EFF2) !ulticulturalism and the #olitics of %ecognition. Prin%eton, I:: Prin%eton ;niversity Press.
)ho*+son, :ohn &. (2000) #olitical Scandal$ #ower and 9isibility in the !edia 5ge. !a*brid"e: Polity Press.
)ho*+son, :ohn &. (2005) <)he Ie, Visibility=, Theory; Culture and Society 22(C): 3E5E.
;rry, :ohn (2002) The Tourist (a)e, 2nd edn. 5ondon: $a"e.
Vandenber"he, ?rNdNri% (2002) <2e%onstru%tin" 6u*ants: 6u*anist !riti-ue o# %tant/Iet,or. )heory=, Theory;
Culture < Society EF(5HC): 5EC7.
Virilio, Paul (EFBC) Speed and #olitics- 5n 4ssay on "romology, trans. Mar. Poli@@otti. Ie, Mor.: !olu*bia
;niversity Press.
Virilio, Paul (EFF4) The 9ision !achine, trans. :ulie 2ose. Minnea+olis: 3ndiana ;niversity Press.
E7