Amidst my reading of the first five chapters of T. V. Reed's Digitized Lives: Culture, Power and Social Change, something happened. Something happened that brought a number of the themes and anxieties expressed in Reed's book to the forefront of news outlets, social media, and popular culture: nude photographs of a bevy of Hollywood actresses and celebrities were leaked on the Internet. Though there is still no confirmation about how these photographs were acquired, reports have suggested that someone (or a group of people considering the sheer breadth of individuals and photographs exposed in the leak) likely hacked into or had some access to the smart phones or cloud services of these Hollywood actresses and celebrities.
I am here making a conscious ethical and rhetorical choice not to name these individuals, particularly in light of the ways in which these photographs have been described by journalists, newscasters, and on message boards and social media. Not to mention, the hacker(s) remain anonymous as these photographs continue to be copied, re-posted, and otherwise circulated throughout the World Wide Web.
In the interest of putting all of this into conversation with Reed's book, I would like to take a moment to provide a brief summary of his project in Digitized Lives. Simply put, Digitized Lives is designed as a survey of sorts of the impact of digital technologies, namely the Internet, upon the ways in which we communicate and relate to one another. Throughout the book, Reed places a particular emphasis on the notion that "digital devices are never culturally neutral" (13), thus implying that the production, consumption, and use of digital devices have far-reaching social and political consequences that in many ways implicate users and provide the interpersonal scaffolding that forms the cultural landscape we navigate on a daily basis. That's a mouthful, I know, but stay with me.
Reed contests earlier conceptualizations of the World Wide Web as a "place beyond race, sex, and gender" (54), pointing to the ways in which the vectors of race, sex, gender, class, disability, environmentalism, social justice, and geographical location inform and/or are altogether disregarded by mainstream (read: Western, white, heterosexual, male) establishments. Salient to the overall project in Digitized Lives is the role that bodies and embodiment play in constructing and/or deconstructing the bridge that binds online and offline identities and milieus. While Reed identifies strains of the post-human in online efforts to somehow assume or "tour" a new or different identity, he also forecloses the prospects of divesting oneself of their bodily existence offline. Indeed, he makes it a point to suggest that "merely touring an identity is very different from profoundly inhabiting a body that is frequently subjected to discrimination" (55).
Having now provided more of a foundation for what Reed is attempting to accomplish in Digitized Lives, I would like to return to the matter of the leaked photographs. Over the last few days since the photographs were leaked, I have encountered a number of articles and messages that describe them as "raunchy," "naughty," "scandalous," or in some way indicative of the "dirty side" of the Hollywood actresses and celebrities that were exposed.
What's so disturbing about this sort of vernacular is that it detracts in many ways from the actual criminal act that has taken place. Indeed, it becomes unclear whether the aforementioned adjectives pertain to the act of the hacker(s) whom violated the privacy of several young women and, frankly, engaged in sexual assault, by illegally circulating these nude photographs; the act of the Hollywood actresses and celebrities in recording themselves in "compromising" sexual situations; or, most troubling, the act of the Hollywood actresses and celebrities for being in "compromising" sexual situations to begin with.
This is not an issue of "semantics" or "rhetoric." In fact, these purported deflections away from the matter of the actual photo leak might suggest in some ways that those whom had their nude photographs leaked actually share and/or shoulder the responsibility for how they were represented within multimedia that was seemingly not at all intended for the World Wide Web. By using terms like "raunchy," "naughty," "scandalous," "dirty side," or gesturing in any other way to sexual deviance in relation to these leaked nude photographs, these "reports" tacitly attach this terminology and its attendant implications to the Hollywood actresses and celebrities--the victims--themselves.
Victim blaming of this sort not only undermines many of the prospects for engaging in a compelling and important dialogue about privacy measures in the digital age, it aspires to police and circumscribe what constitutes sexuality. And, more specifically, it perverts and "grotto"-izes a pretty benign form of sexual expression. Listen, every human being ever has been naked at least one time in their lives. I don't say this to minimize what has taken place here, but to perhaps caution those who might discuss this matter in any detail or forum against using terminology that might implicate any of the victims of this crime and deflect attention away from the crime itself. No matter how you identify in terms of sex and gender, there's actually quite a bit at stake in the ways in which sexuality and sexual expression are communicated.
And, fellow dudes, please ruminate for a moment on the male-female ratio of leaked photographs now or ever. Meditate for a moment on the fact that pretty much 99.9% of the time, it is women who are targeted in photo leaks of this sort. So, it might be a drag to consider how the rhetoric surrounding this photo leak and, of course, the photo leak itself, contributes to divisions of power, limitations upon the prospects for self-identification, the prevalence of rape and sexual assault, etc., but it's your responsibility. So do it, and for God's sake, please understand the difference between sex and gender.
This is a really solid post. You did what I needed you to do while still bringing your own flavor/take to it. Using an extended example like you did helps to illuminate key points from the book. I am 100% cool with this approach, though I would encourage you to try ending the post with a brief return to the reading in some way. I could've seen you return to Reed here, particularly to illustrate how the offline world follows us online (and perhaps vice versa, feeding off of one another). That being said, I look forward to future posts and am totally ok with this writing approach.
ReplyDelete