Historians of photographic practice often draw attention to how photography has been a central aspect of the state apparatus and its field of security since the nineteenth century. From portraits (or mug shots) of criminals, the mentally ill, colonial subjects, and victims of imperial violence to landscapes of exotic locations that were prize possessions of European empires, the modern state has used the photograph and a realist scopic regime as performatives of power.
The recognition that we see the authorities and that the authorities see us has been internalised by political subjects. Despite the ubiquity of surveillance and other practices of visualization, to be seen by the state apparatus can be intimidating and isolating. The state scopic regime is one that in part is designed to make us feel vulnerable when we are subject to the governmental gaze. Photography has thus been constitutive of the very power-relations of sovereignty, discipline and biopolitics that link government and society.
It is seeing this scopic regime in action at a micro-level that I find so interesting in the photo above. As Newcastle University students stage a protest in the student centre on December 1st, the university's head of security takes close-up photographs of the protesters. The message is clear: 'we will know who you are.'
Is the Newcastle security team now rifling through their database of student photographs in order to initiate disciplinary procedures? Probably not. And in fairness, both security and the administration have been quite reasonable and flexible in comparison to other institutions with their handling of the current occupation.
But, that's not the point. The purpose of the photographs was not necessarily to initiate formal disciplinary procedures but rather to catalyse internal disciplining by the students themselves. The portrait as a practice of individualisation is intended to make these students feel vulnerable by accentuating a feeling of separation from the larger collective of student protesters on campus.
This mirrors other statements coming from across the UK that have attempted to isolate student protesters in general from the student body by arguing that their concerns lack democratic legitimacy. This is a position whose implications have not been thought through very clearly by those in positions of authority within institutions who are themselves, mostly unelected.
How then have the protesters responded to this scopic regime and its practices of seeing?
Rather than acknowledge or internalize its practices of power, they have instead chosen to mock it, to hold it in contempt, to reveal it for the travesty that it is. To me, this indicates that there may be something deeper and less transitory about the student demonstrations, occupations, and direct actions proliferating across the UK than one might otherwise think.
Photo credits: Newcastle Student Occupation