The "Eyes" Have It: Chapter 3 of Digitizing Race

Since Anne has been asking us to think about our writing on the blog, I'm going to try a different form of posting. Not only will I try to be less "personal," I will also try to be more concise.

This chapter raised several interesting issues concerning race and its "social optics." According to Nakamura, "social optics" refer to how the eye visualizes the signifiers of race in society. She analyzes two mainstream films: The Matrix and Minority Report to explore how race is figured visually in those films.

Overall, she does a fairly decent job of discussing the major parts of the film, focusing on several characters and aspects that do signify race and racial optics. This chapter was slightly less schizophrenic than her previous two, and was therefore easier to read. Further, Nakamura seemed to have a clear point that she was arguing. In this chapter, it was much easier to understand that instead of coming to a clear conclusion, she is examining how these issues operate.

For example, Nakamura writes, "Like the Zion gate operator in The Matrix, Anderton is engaging in a transparent relationship with the interface that confirms his privilege in the racial landscape. Anderton has the privileged view that comes with a proprioceptive, immediate relationship to networked digital imaging" (123). In other words, an unmediated and immediate, proprietary and consumerist, relationship to media confers social privilege. If we relate this argument to other points from this chapter and previous ones, it's clear that Nakamura explores how our relationship to, and position regarding, new media, establishes not only the "color" of the interface(s), but also the ways in which it stratifies others in relationship to it. Ultimately, if my analysis is correct, then this is the point I wish she had made clearer throughout, as it is simultaneously fascinating and disturbing.

Nakamura also points out that these films visually create positions: white people are the main users (and perhaps, victims) of technology, while black people are on the margins. This may be true of these two films, and many other films, but what's the significance, especially for those who have not seen these films? That is, how does this analysis let us see these dynamics operating in the rest of digital media? My main contention with Nakamura's discussion here is that she does not seem to spend enough time addressing the ways that these films call into question the visual formulations of race. I read her analysis of these films with an eye to resistance; she does not seem to give the films enough credit. Her discussion of "alllooksame.com," however, does. Therefore, is her argument that films do not force us to question our assumptions (due to viewer position, etc), whereas websites do? I doubt that that's true, and if she is arguing that, but it seems to be the case. I want her to go back and look at viewers' receptions of the films to figure out the work they are actually doing, and why.

A question I'm thinking about: What role does position -- the physical position of the viewer -- play in their response? Would a website more effectively resist hegemony and ideological assumptions, since it presumes interactivity? I'm thinking here of Virilio's statement that the screen holds us hostage. Does the computer screen hold us hostage in the same way? If so, what potential for resistance is there?