Outline
1. Introduction 1-2 2. Visuality in Critical Security Studies 2-3 3. Visual Securitization 3-5 4. What is an image? 5
5. Visuality as power 5-6 6. Seeing the Extraordinary in International Relation 6
6. 1 Postcolonialism and visuality in International Relations 6-8 6. 2 Gender and Visuality in International Relations 8-9 7. Conclusion 9-10 References 11-13 Appendix 14
1. Introduction
Images have the power to make us cry, shock us, change our mindsets, and haunt our thoughts and dreams. Yet images also surround us all the time, hardly noticed, banal and cliche ́d. They comprise a large part of our daily lives, in forming our actions unconsciously. Moreover, since new technologies such as computers and smartphones came up with their nearly global coverage from the beginning of the 21ths century, there is a rise of communication between people all over the world through the internet. The world became a “village” and the access to the internet for more people made it possible to imagine how people live around the world without ever being there. Aforementioned concepts enabled people to follow events on the other side of the globe in real time and made global organization of social movements possible. These new forms of technologies have allowed people to express themselves through blogs, websites, videos, pictures, and other media. New media technologies with their real-time global television coverage, the Internet and smartphones with cameras and video-recording capacity have influenced and changed the relationship between producers and consumers, between elites, for example politicians, and their “audiences”. While it was possible for the elite to address its audience directly through media which was related to certain hierarchies of what is shown and what could be seen during the time of traditional media, new media technologies and easy access to the internet have changed this relationship and the imbalance of power. Of course, it did not change completely and there is for sure a hierarchy of what is shown through media and what kind of images or texts are being read and which are not. The possibility of bringing in more perspectives through media increased with the development and global coverage of new media. This has also an impact on global and national politics. For example the conduct of warfare itself changed: For example the training of soldiers through video games and cyber- simulations to the controlling of unmanned drones from long distances far away was established (Der Derian: 2001). Here we can see that media is becoming an important factor when it comes to global politics. Visuality like images and films is being produced and distributed through the internet and influences the audience as well as the political and social discourse. In that context one has to refer to the real-time coverage of political and historical events like people falling to death on 9/11, the snapshots from Abu Ghraib, and the Muhammad Cartoon Crisis.
This transformation driven by new technologies and new media is also influencing the academic world. Next to the studies on the social impact of media there is also a new interest in their implications on political decision-making and International Relations. Moreover since the visual and aesthetic turn (e.g. Bleiker, 2001; Delmont, 2013; Faludi, 2007; Hansen, 2011) in International Relation after the Cold War there is a shift to a new set of problems, in particular the relation between performativity and power in International Relations. Performativity in this context is defined as a “speech act, that creates events or relations in the ́real world ́” (Butler,
1
1993:107). ‘Discursive performativity’, Butler (1993:107) argues, ‘appears to produce that which it names, to enact its own referent, to name and to do, to name and to make. … [g]enerally speaking, a performative functions to produce that which it declares’.
Since this change of direction there is a growing interest in understanding the interaction between popular media cultures and security. Within this field images and visuality play a rather ambiguous role in security studies for example in waging wars. Through visuality (in)security is constructed and for example wars can be legitimized or de-legitimized. In that context narratives about the self and other are significant also in relation to the construction of (national) identity (Campbell, 2007:358).
When it comes to the aspect of war visuality is important for example through war photography like Robert Capa’s photo of the Spanish civil war (falling soldier) or Nick Ut’s photos of the Vietnam war. Moreover in the war on terror visuality plays a significant role in justifying the intervention of US troops in Afghanistan. These war photographs and visuality, transported foremost through media, effect emotions directly and seem to bring the spectator closer to the event. War photographs are objects of discourses in society in which they can have different interpretations and performative acts. For example the photography of the “napalm girl” could call for immediate retreat of US-Troops from Vietnam or just for the modification of warfare (Hansen, 2011: 58).
The following paper concerns the role of visuality in security studies. Moreover, it will discuss the performative power of images before it goes deeper into the power structures of securitizing images.
Afterwards this article will make two examples of seeing the extraordinary in International Relations. Firstly postcolonialism and visuality, secondly gender and visuality in International Relations to show how power-structures influence the availability of pictures and visual framing. In the end this article will sum up the findings and give ideas for further research.
2. Visuality in Critical Security Studies
Visuality plays an important role when it comes to Critical Security Studies. As described in the introduction there has been a shift to a new set of problems and new interests. However, many scholars still seem to be skeptical about the powerful impact of images. They argue that the context and the narrative framing are more influential than the pictures themselves (Perlmutter, 1998; Zelizer, 1998). The question posed by these scholars is whether images constitute the passive part of illustrating the framing or if they actually have the power to shape discourses. This paper however points out that the relation between frames and images is a relation of high tension. High-tension relation means the visual framing can support the dominant narrative or disrupt the discourse by opposing the dominant discursive meaning like the images of Abu
2
Ghraib did. (Andén-Papadopoulos, 2008) Part of this question is the performative power of visuality on global politics and the discourse about security within society as well as on the political level. As Heck and Schlag put it: “How (in)securities are politically recognized increasingly depends on the availability of images and the ways in which we are able to image what it means for people to live in war-torn societies” (2013: 893).
As the quote illustrates there is a certain relation between the world of politics and media, because everything we know about the world we know through media representing it (Luhmann, 2000: 1). Moreover, media are believed to be a fourth branch of the government, or at least cooperating with part of the total national establishment, and an instrument expressing and promoting national perspectives in international relationships (Merrill, 1995). If so, are images and visual frames only the instrument of illustrating dominant narratives in a discourse or do they have other impacts? Nowadays, where many people have access to the internet and distribute their pictures, while international censorship is a controversial issue these aspects seem to change. In addition, there is a debate about the ethic aspect of media like misusage of images or the usage of visuality for social mobilization. This mechanism is showing for example in the case of the mohammad-cartoon-crisis in Denmark as well as films or pop-cultural artifacts.
Through images myths and justification as well as the ‘other’ is constructed, presented and reproduced (Kellner, 1995). Campbell (2007: 358) states that “visual imagery is of particular importance for geopolitics because it is one of the principal ways in which news from distant places is brought home, constructing the notion of “home” in this process”. Also docudramas are part of this debate, which try to reconstruct certain narratives about critical events, foremost phenomenons with a dislocation in discourse and support dominant narratives. With these works and elements of collective memories they influence world politics and opinions about international relations. Narratives about security and insecurity are constructed, transformed and renewed.
3. Visual Securitization
Before this paper can focus on the securitizing power of images, a definition of security is needed: „Security is a speech act, the act itself carries it meaning“ (Waever, 1995:55). This definition from Waever shows a critical approach to security studies. It defines security as produced by discourse. Threats, justification and possible reactions and treatments are constructed in the discursive field, which depends upon language. Something becomes a security problem through discursive politics. (Campbell, 1992)
Images constitute something or someone as threatened and in need of immediate defense (Hansen, 2011:51). The question to ask is whether images itself can „speak security“. Obviously
3
images do not consist of words, texts and speech. However they are often embedded in discourse. For example images in articles are often used for illustration.
But researchers disagree on the issue of performative power of images as a free-standing entity. An argument for the performative power without context would be that images distributed primarily through media can be taken from their context and put into different context or stand without context. Moreover, the spectators often do not know the background-story of a picture but classify what they see and develop an emotional response. When we take for example the prominent war photography of Phan Thị Kim Phúc taken by Nick Út which shows five children running away from something along a road followed by soldiers, most of the people know little about the context, including the persons that are shown or the concrete place, date or situation. The photo comes up from time to time embedded in different discourses. While in the past the focus lay on the terror that is shown, the discourse shifted lastly to the question why the girl is naked on the photo and if it should be censored in the internet (The Guardian Sept. 2016). Additionally, the photo was shaped in different contexts so that for example the soldier on the left side was cut out or the focus shifted (The Guardian April 2015). This has an enormous impact on the photo’s effect. This iconic image has obviously power and can be understood without context, at least the facts that the children are feared, running away and crying are conveyed through the bare image.
Kept in mind while examining the securitizing effect of images language is an important aspect because thinking and interacting with other people is constructed through the combination of words. Many researchers argue that our thinking and expression is limited by language and discourse (Foucault, 2015: 114ff). In order to understand an image language is always necessary because images depend on associations constructed through words which carry broader social concepts. This is why images cannot be seen as free-standing, because we always connect them to experiences and knowledge one had before. When we see the crying children on the photo, the word crying is historically and socially related to certain concepts and expectations. Everything we cannot describe or say yet is not part of the discourse.
But one has to admit that images can have enormous power. When an image reaches iconic status and is being replicated and picked up from different news-platforms it seems to be more effecting and shaping than language. This fact bases on the differences between images, language and words. Hansen states that words and images differ in at least three respects (Hansen, 2011: 55ff.). Firstly, the immediacy which refers to the „immediate, emotive responds that exceeds of texts“. Images bring the spectator closer to the event than words or written texts. Important in this context is the relation between the depicted and the spectator.
Secondly, the circulability, which rests on the social as well as on the material-technological conditions of global distribution.
4
Thirdly, the ambiguity which refers to the aspect of different possible meaning or interpretations that are limited by discourse (Hansen, 2011: 55ff.). Some narratives are privileged while others are neglected. While speech acts of securitization specify what policies should be undertaken to address the threats identified, visuals do not. There is always a need of interpretation.
4. What is an image?
To gain a deeper understanding on how images and visuality can influence and shape discourses we need to pose the question of what an image could be. The definition of ‚image‘ is a controversial issue (Boehm, 1994; Mitchell, 1994). There are different terms in different languages. Mitchell (1987: 7) claims that all images „whether they are mental, verbal or proper, need to be interpreted.“ What they means depends on how they are seen (Heck & Schlag, 2013:897).
Also controversial is if images own auto-activity or if they always depend on the verbal framing they are presented in. This relates to the point discussed before, if images have performative power or if they are used to support and illustrate the dominant narrative given by the linguistic framing. The question is not only how images function within the narrow frames of a particular paper or magazine, and within elite political discourse, but in culture at large (Andén- Papadopoulos, 2008:7). How is meaning produced through images and when they circulate in specific cultures?
Images are neither pre-existing objects nor representations of an unproblematic reality they simply depict. They are the ontological effect of the discursive and material relation between pictures, their producers and spectators. “Images which contradict or disrupt a dominant discursive frame might have a considerable impact, if not directly on politics and policy-making, then more so on popular imagination and historical consciousness.”(Andén-Papadopoulos, 2008:6) The question to be posed here is, what is shown, what is seen and how does this affect the emotions of the spectator. To understand what is important in the process of showing and seeing this article will go deeper into the relation of securitizing images and power.
5. Visuality as power
Power is an attribute structuring the whole society and world we live in. It is articulated through discourse which is limited by words. There is nothing outside of discourse, apart from the things that are not possible to be articulated yet (Foucault, 1982). Power structures also have great influence on visuality. They structure how images can be understood and how they are discussed in society. They often support dominant narratives but can also be a factor of disrupting the dominant narrative by showing and distributing an iconic image. Power structures influence significantly what is shown and what is seen in the discourse of security. The common saying
5
„there is nothing to see here“ reflects and shows a certain hierarchy of subject positions deciding on what is shown and what stays hidden (Mirzoeff, 2011). There are dominant narratives, which are more likely to be seen and trigger actions whereas minored narratives are less likely to be seen or believed in. This is problematic not only because minored narratives are not likely to be seen but also because images, mainly journalistic images, in the news have the status of unmediated “windows” on the world and photographs serve to guarantee the objectivity and truth value of these news reported. Also of importance in this context is the construction of identity, particularly national identity through othering-processes. The construction of identity through discourse and the establishment of chains of equivalences are essential in International Relations since identity always needs an antagonist to be constituted by discourse.(Laclau & Mouffe, 1985)
This also functions through visuality: Power-structures and hegemonic projects decide what to believe in and what to take as reality. Some researchers even say that images can speak louder than words. Hence, they become celebrated cultural symbols, which reflect and reinforce national mythologies (Zelizer 1998,1999).
6. Seeing the Extraordinary in International Relations
In the last section of this paper I will bring together the theoretical approaches of power- structures, auto-activity and performativity of images and show how visuality shapes discourses and how power-structures wipe out minor perspectives while supporting dominant narratives and dominant security definitions.
In order to answer these question this paper will focus on two examples, namely postcolonialism and neo-colonial structures performed through visuality and the visual construction of female and its impact on Security studies.
6. 1 Postcolonialism and visuality in International Relations
Postcolonial Theory is an academic study of the consequences of colonialism and its traces in nowaday’s societies and its effects on different political spheres like International Relations. Postcolonial Theory rejects the universalizing tendencies of academics and politics and discloses subaltern narratives. Its aim is to make subaltern narratives visible and empower subjects of minor positions (Varela & Dhawan, 2015: 17).
Postcolonial structures have implications on how (in)security is depicted and understood. Postcolonial theorists claim that people of color and the spaces they occupy neglected in the dominant discourse on security. And in case they are made visible then often through the representation of the dominant narratives. They often have no space and power to present themselves, their voice is not heard in the discourse. This shows a certain relationship and the
6
powerstructure between the persons that are visualized and the those who visualize. To illustrate this theory further, this paper will present the killing of Osama bin Laden in 2011.
The events of the 2. May 2011 when Osama bin Laden was found in his compound in Abbottabad in Pakistan have been narrated repeatedly from the US standpoint (Dixit, 2014:337). A small group of US intelligence officers carried out the operation and killed bin Laden after a firefight. Pakistan as well as Osama bin Laden himself are missing in most of the narratives. They often focus on the operating group of SEALS as being heroic and with courage and extraordinary ability.
The first question to be asked when it comes to visual framing is who saw bin Laden being shot? The answer would be, that nobody saw him apart from some soldiers of the operating group that were in the same room when it happened. In the situation room of the US government a blackout of 20 minutes during the operation kept the surveying politicians from following the live-stream. Here we can see the importance of media and narrative construction that begin after the event since they had to reconstruct what happened there. The picture of the dead body was held back so it had to be made plausible to make sure the killing really took place.
In this US-narrative it is interesting to see that Pakistan is constructed as a bystander in the operation, and also the people that were killed during the raid perish from the discourse. In the media they were represented as collateral damage, while Pakistani media mentioned them as real persons with individual character traits/ personalities.
Moreover in the US-narrative there was no notion of the illegitimacy of the operation in which one state (the US) just entered another state‘s territory to kill one individual, in this case bin Laden. The state Pakistan as well as the colored bodies were wiped out of the discourse, which is related with the power-structures I referred to before. Another important point is the so called hideout of Osama bin Laden which was a big compound visible in the everyday life of the Pakistani people. Moreover, it was not in the outback but in one of Pakistan‘ s bigger cities. Osama bin Laden managed his daily life there, had contact with neighbors and was not as hidden as to be expected from US-narrative. In their view it was clear that a terrorist, which is constructed as a criminal, would be scared of being uncovered and being rightfully judged and hiding in a cave far away from civilization.
What we can see here is the construction of a dominant narrative by framing images and replace missing images through images constructed by language. To wipe out colored bodies is one aspect of postcolonial structures in International Relations. Another often observable construction in studies is a certain depiction of the “other” through images and news coverage. David Campbell focused on this aspect in his article “Geopolitics and visuality: Sighting the Darfur conflict”. He states that images contribute to the development of an imagined geography
7
in which dichotomies of for example West/East, North/South and developed and underdeveloped. They therefore have impact on the self-definition or identity of the producers of these images. (Campbell, 2007) When it comes to Security Studies these dichotomies are often associated with the good and the bad and therefore used as a justification of humanitarian war. The acting state defines itself and its actions as just and civilized bringing democracy and human rights whereas the other is constructed as barbaric and in need of intervention. People from the global south are often constructed as being passive and as needing “our” pity. The discourse suppresses the heterogeneous identity of the “other” and construct an antagonistic version of the “self”.
6. 2 Gender and Visuality in International Relations
The construction of “self” and “other” also plays a significant role when it comes to gender as a category in International Relations. As I wrote above “the other” is often constructed as passive and in need of pity or even written out of the discourse. These attributes are historically and discursively associated with femininity and transferred to objects of International Relations.
To introduce the topic of gender I will sum up shortly in which cases gender plays a role recently in International Politics.
In 2014 300 Chibok girls and young women were kidnapped by Boko Haram. Thousands of Yazidi girls were sold into sex slavery by the Islamic State, whereas many women migrated to and took up arms for Islamic State. Moreover domestic violence rates were on rise in 2015. Women are disproportionately affected by disease outbreaks as well as by migration patterns. They are underrepresented in halls of power almost everywhere in the world and over represented among the poor and uneducated. But what is it about women that causes them to be treated differently? And why do we see women soldiers, women politicians and women leaders as women first and as soldiers, politicians and leaders second? (Sjoberg; Fontoura, 2017:172ff.) These are questions that Feminist IR Studies and activists interested in gender and International Relation ask. Very important when talking about feminist International Relation Studies is the distinction between the two concepts of sex and gender which are often used as synonyms but which are not similar. Sex usually indicates a biological category, whereas the concept of gender refers to the social expectations assigned to people based on their understood or internally or externally defined or identified biological sex. Men are expected to be masculine, women are expected to be feminine. What femininity and masculinity means depends on the historical, social and political discourse. Masculinity is often associated with attributes like strength, rationality, objectivity, aggressiveness, independence and they occupy the political, public sphere. Femininity is often associated with the private sphere, interdependence, weakness, subjectivity and passiveness.
8
But there is not a unique idea of masculinity and femininity but different competing notions. The social and cultural dominant understanding is called hegemonic masculinity or femininity. These concepts are social constructions, product and producer at the same time. They are not only associated with bodies but also with actors in the International Relations like states, war, institutions and organizations.
In war times for example the threat or the state to be intervened in, is often constructed as being female, weak, in need of intervention and unstable. Also when it comes to war, visuality and gender are often used as a way to legitimize wars and glorify them as ‚just wars‘ or ‚humanitarian wars‘. „[L]ooking at the effects of war through gendered lenses, we find that war is a cultural construction that depends on myths of protection. Such myths have been important in upholding the legitimacy of war” (Tickner & Sjoburg, 2006: 194).
This mystification often shows that female bodies are in need of protection thus becoming an integral part of the legitimizing of war. The female body is constructed as being in need of protection. One example would be the cover of the Time Magazine which showed a young afghan women whose nose is cut of. Her name is Aisha and in the article her story was presented as being representative for all afghan women. The subtitle of the Images is: What happens if we leave Afghanistan? (Time Magazine 9. August 2010).
This image, in combination with the subtitle, legitimized the US intervention in Afghanistan and constructed it as a ‚good‘ humanitarian war for women‘ s rights. Some feminist supported this narrative while others were more critical, claiming that the war was never intended to be fought for the dignity of women and women’s rights. Further the idea of deciding over the fate of Afghan women is linked to a certain hierarchy reproduced by such actions.
Another aspect is, that the abuse took place under Taliban regime after US-troops intervened, so the presence of the soldiers did not prevent cases like Aischas abuse. The image of Aischa transports however the binary gender expectations. The women in need of protection and the soldiers as just warriors to fight for the dignity of women.
Another example where visuality and the female body were important in International Relations is the kidnapping of 300 young women and girls mentioned in the introduction. The ‚girls‘ or ‚schoolgirls‘ are constructed as being really young through media, while in reality most of them were around 18 or 19 years old. This constructs the image of girls not able to act for themselves.
7. Conclusion:
This paper aimed to outreach the role of visuality in critical security studies. Moreover, it discussed the performative power of images and existing power-structures transferred and reproduced by images and their distribution and reception. Afterwards this paper showed two
9
examples of seeing the extraordinary in International Relations such as postcolonial structures and gender.
As the paper showed the topic of visuality plays a significant role in International Relations and Global Politics. Images differ from words and have therefore a specific impact on the production of knowledge and meaning. The controversial question if images have performative power can not be solved within this paper but the examples given in this article gave an impression of the impact images can have on shaping the discourse.
Additionally, this paper tries to show the extraordinary in International Relations, both in relation to power structures that limit the framing of narratives and in relation to the aspect of performativity.
As we can see power structures also effect the availability of images and minor perspectives. There are images more likely to be seen than others.
But in times where more people have the ability to organize globally and to distribute their images through the internet, the power of those images and their influence on global politics have to be focused on in more depth. But nevertheless it has to be kept in mind that images do not show an objective reality. On the contrary they only transfer a reality that is shaped by underlying conventions, power structures, censorship and political interests. Moreover, other invisible discursive structures influence the availability of images like the construction of “self” and “other” which is reflected very rare in society.
Therefore more research is needed when it comes to theory building as well as methodology. How do images produce meanings and knowledge. Does this knowledge differ from the knowledge produced by language?
Do images have the power to convey and connote things that cannot be articulated in discourse yet and therefore shift and frame new discourses? Or is the power of images overestimated and they only illustrate the dominant narrative?
These questions couldn’t be answered fully in this paper but need to be focused in further researches.
10
References:
Andén-Papadopoulos (2008): The Abu Ghraib torture photographs, News frames, visual culture, and the power of images, Journalism 2008;9;5.
Blanchard, Eric M. (2003): Gender, International Relations, and the Development of Feminist Security Theory, Vol. 28, No. 4, pp. 1289-1312 Published by: The University of Chicago Press.
Bleiker, R. (2001): The Aesthetic Turn in International Political Theory in: Millennium: Journal of International Studies, Vol. 30, No. 3, 509-533.
Boehm, G. (1994): Was ist ein Bild?[What is an image?], München: Fink Verlag.
Butler, Judith (1993): Bodies that Matter. On the Discursive Limits of “Sex”. New York/London: Routledge.
Campbell (1992): Writing Security. United States Foreign Policy and the Politics of Identity, University of Minnesota Press.
Campbell (2007): Geopolitics and visuality: Sighting the Darfur conflict. Political Geography 26 (2007) 357-382.
Chowdhry, G./ Nair, S. (2004): Power, Postcolonialism and International Relations. Reading race, gender and class, New York/ London: Routledge.
Delmont, M. (2013). Introduction: Visual Culture and the War on Terror. American Quarterly 65 (1), 157-160. Johns Hopkins University Press.
Der Derian, J. (2001): Virtuous war: Mapping the military-industrial-media-entertainment complex. Westview, Boulder, CO.
Dixit, Priya (2014): Decolonizing visuality in security studies: Reflections on the death of Osama bin Laden, Critical Studies on Security, Vol.2, No.3, 337-351.
Faludi, S. (2007): The Terror Dream: Fear and Fantasy in Post 9/11 America. New York: Metropolitan Books.
11
Foucault (2015): Die Ordnung der Dinge. Eine Archäologie der Humanwissenschaften, 23. Auflage Suhrkamp Verlag Frankfurt am Main.
Foucault, Michel (1982): The Subject and Power in Critical Inquiry, Vol. 8, No. 4 (Summer, 1982), 777-795 Published by: The University of Chicago Press.
Griffin, M. (1999): “The great War Photographs: Constructing Myths of History and Photojournalism”, in B. Brennen and H. Hardt (eds.) Picturing the Past. Media, History, Photography, 122-157. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
Hansen, Lena (2011): Theorizing the image for Security Studies: Visual securitization and the Muhammad Cartoon Crisis, European Journal of International Relations 17(1) 51–74.
Heck, A., & Schlag, G. (2013). Securitizing images: The female body and the war in Afghanistan, in European Journal of International Relations, 19(4), 891-913.
Kellner, D. (1995). Media culture: Cultural studies, identify and politics between the modern and the postmodern. London: Routledge.
Laclau, Ernesto; Mouffe, Chantal (1985): Hegemony and Socialist Strategy: Towards a Radical Democratic Politics, London: Verso.
Luhmann, N./ Cross, K. (trans.) (2000): The Reality of the Mass Media. Stanford University Press.
Merrill, J. C. (1995). Global journalism. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Mitchell, W.J.T. (1994): Picture Theory: Essays on Verbal and Visual Representation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Mitchell, W. J. T. (1984): New Literary History, Vol. 15, No. 3, Image/Imago/Imagination (Spring, 1984), 503-537
Mitchell WJT (1987) Iconology: Images, Text, Ideology. Chicago, IL and London: The University of Chicago Press.
12
Mirzoeff, N. (2011). The right to look. In Critical Inquiry, 37(3), 473-496.
Perlmutter, D. (1998). Photojournalism and foreign policy: Framing icons of outrage in international crisis. Westport, CT: Greenwood.
Sjoberg, L. Fontoura, N. (2017): Gender 172-184 in Beeson, Mark/ Bisley, Nick: World Politics, Issues in 21st Century. 3. Edition, London: Palgrave.
Tickner/ Sjobourg (2006): Feminism. In: Dunne T, Kurki M and Smith S (eds) International Relation Theories: Discipline and Diversity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 185- 202.
Varela, María do Mar Castro & Dhawan, Nikita (2015): Postkoloniale Theorie. Eine kritische Einführung, 2., komplett überarbeitete und erweiterte Auflage, Bielefeld: transcript Verlag.
Waever, O. (1995): Securitization and Desecuritization. In: Lipschutz RD (ed) On Security. New York Columbia University Press, 46-86.
Zelizer, B. (1998): Remembering to forget. Holocaust Memory through the Camera’s Eye. Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press.
Zelizer, B. (1999): “From the Image of Record to the Image of Memory: Holocaust Photography, Then and Now”, in B. Brennen and H. Hardt (eds.) Picturing the Past, Media, History, Photography, pp. 98-121. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
Zelizer, B. (2001): Visual Culture and the Holocaust. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
Online-Sources
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/sep/09/facebook-reinstates-napalm-girl-photo
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/apr/30/40-years-since-saigons-fall-napalm-attack- haunts-woman-in-iconic-image
(http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,2007415,00.html)
13
Appendix:
Images I referred to in the text:
1) War photography of the Vietnam war (Phan Thi Kim Phuc)
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phan_Thi_Kim_Phuc#/media/File:TrangBang.jpg) 2) Cover of the Time Magazine
(http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,2007415,00.html)