Marsh 1

Jared D. Marsh
Introduction to Human Rights
Professor Pruce
04.01.2019

Human Rights and Photography

In the advent of the Kodak portable camera in 1888, society was able to grasp a better

understanding of what a lack of human rights and human dignity looked like rather than what the

recognition is seen as. The photograph created a new phenomenon making humans thousands of

miles away from an incident a global spectator of events. Since the “incorruptible Kodak” has

allowed the world to view crimes against humanity as a spectator, many questions about the

relationship between photography and the spectator have been raised. Ever since the notion of

human rights gained popularity in the late 1940’s an interconnection between human rights and

human dignity has been evident. Philosophers’ debate about what are human rights and human

dignity and if it is possible to ascribe such attributes to human beings; a topic that will not be

discussed here but will be an assumed assumption. The questions aroused from the relationship

between photography and human dignity that are still unanswered (in the context of when a lack

of human dignity is shown in photography) are: has photography aroused public concern (known

as the “CNN effect”), manufactured indifference to distant tragedy, or distracted from the larger

motives and ambitions that drive political violence (Sliwinski 2011, 112)? The viewer must be

weary in a changing world that allows for the manipulation of photography. To combat this

understanding of what is seen must always be sought.

Emmanuel Kant had been noted to perceive a significance of revolution found in

observers and distant spectators which established a concept of humanity born by emotional
 Marsh 2

engagement of spectators (Sliwinski 2011, 20). One cannot deny the emotion that is provoked

from photos like a naked man being flogged, presumably for some unknown “offense”

committed, from the Anti-Slavery International archive (Sliwinski 2011, 76). This photograph

does not offer an example of what recognition of human dignity looks like but rather a lack of

human dignity exemplified. An example made possible through the use of photography. When

GI soldiers first discovered what later became known as concentration camps during WWII, as

seen from the picture of bodies filled on transportation train, they did not understand what they

say and even considered scene to be a political stunt (Sliwinski 2011, 92). It is imperative that

viewers understand what the photograph is trying to communicate in the still image it creates.

Hannah Arendt defines understanding as, “a complicated process that never produces

unequivocal results. It is an unending activity by which, in constant change and variation, we

come to terms with and reconcile ourselves to reality, that is, try to be at home in the world”

(Sliwinski 2011, 14). In the situation that there is an assumed recognition of human dignity, or

lack of, elicited through photography the question remains, is there a responsibility placed on the

spectator after seeing another human’s human dignity not recognized or even violated?

In a globalized world it seems that every person is complicit in their everyday life. From

the Eichmann trial, it was perceived that if one were to take the former Nazi officer’s argument

of simply “following orders” seriously, then by “following orders” one could participate in

genocide without intention (Sliwinski 2011, 27). Genocide, a term coined by Ralph Lemkin, was

described by Lemkin as, “a coordinated plan of different actions aiming at the destruction of

essential foundations of the life of national groups, with the aim of annihilating the group

themselves” (Sliwinski 2011, 114). In Sharon Sliwinski’s book “Human Rights in Camera” a

picture portrays a group of emaciated ethnic captives with an uncanny resemblance to captives
 Marsh 3

during the Holocaust (123). The Serbian government was able to round up, detain, force labor,

and finally attempt to exterminate humans considered ethnic (genocide) while the world watched

through photography. Clearly a lack of recognition of human dignity, but can the spectator fully

acknowledge human dignity while allowing such atrocities to occur or are orders just being

followed allowing viewers to participate without intention? Mark Twain argues that photography

calls upon the spectator’s faculty of judgment, establishing a “civil contract” between spectator

and human spectacle (Sliwinski 2011, 73). This civil contract could be said to establish a full

recognition and understanding of human dignity in which the public is aroused. But even in the

situation of crimes against humanity being viewed through photography, indifference and

distraction still remain.

The relationship between photography and human dignity is changing as the world and

its malefactors adapt to the presence and role of photography in life. The understanding of

human dignity offered through photography has been challenged. Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie in

her TED talk describes the power in starting a story with “secondly”. When aggressors control

the photography capturing events then they have the power to control the world’s interpretation

of the event by starting with secondly. This makes for the possibility of images to be framed in a

light that darkens the true depth of the horrors or the reasoning behind the atrocity and could

even allow for staged scenes essentially corrupting the “incorruptible Kodak”. Thus, turning the

viewer away from the larger motives and ambitions that drive political violence. But, also there

is a fear of indifference created when viewers become emotionally fatigued and simply “shudder

and turn away” (Sliwinski 2011, 122). An over inundation of photographs seems to make a “civil

contract” between every heinous act impossible to create. With increased advancement in

technology the world might gain a better understanding of what human dignity means and create
 Marsh 4

greater awareness surrounding the atrocities that clearly violate the recognition of human dignity.

What matters is how the world responds.

The future holds many unknows for the world and especially the fate of human dignity. It

is premature to say that technological advancements will bring the understanding and awareness

needed to prevent heinous crimes in violation of human dignity. Regardless, these crimes will

continue to offer example of what a lack of recognition of human dignity looks like providing

further understanding of the concept. The hope for a “civil contract” that binds humanity as

spectator and human spectacle to fully recognize each other’s human dignity is evident but

questioned with inundation. As the world progresses it also regresses. Malefactors have been

allowed to control media dictating the story told to the world by starting with secondly through

the use of photography. There truly might be no medium remaining that is incorruptible. Ever

present in the back of minds is not whether photographs reach the eyes, but if the photographs

reach the heart. It is in the heart that human dignity is recognized and enable the voice and the

hands to fully recognize by fighting and advocating for others. Photography has its eyes on us.

How will we respond?

 Marsh 5

Excluded excerpt:

Human dignity manifests most frequently in the mundane and routine. One sees but may

not perceive it more often than not in everyday life than in the moments when one is looking and

expecting to capture human dignity occurring. The eye must be trained to recognize it and store

it in the memory. Human dignity looks different and unique to everyone as a product of our

environment and how no two people share the same uniqueness. What my eye sees might be

different from what your eye sees. Acts of human dignity start at an individual level and on

occurrence come together as a group effort. What is not to be missed is the individual acts and

efforts that demonstrate human dignity. It happens when the recognition that our environment is

our home and that environmental degradation is intertwined with human degradation. What the

eye sees is everything; for many people we must train to lift the filters that have been placed on

our eyes by society so that we may stop seeing race, gender, and human differences as a way to

categorize and discriminate but as a way to recognize the uniqueness every human being

exhibits. In a group of thousands of people, no two people are the same. Many differences can be

observed but this is not a limiting factor but rather a means to unite and demand change to

recognize the inherent human dignity that every human holds. Human dignity means equality for

all and recognizing that every individual person is worthy of respect. It starts with us. One piece

of littered pollution recycled by one creates a healthier environment for another. Human dignity

is often not perceived from this lens, but it is evident if only one takes the time to look.
 Marsh 6

Works Cited