Does photography steal the subject's soul?

[bmm]

<p>Thomas K - (to the first of your two posts above). No doubt.</p>

<p>But the assumption that you are making is that the situation is one in which the photographer is quite deliberately and consciously taking the image with a message in mind, and is therefore in a position to trade off the 'bad' of taking the image without consent and to the distress of the subject, with the 'good' which he or she wishes to achieve by testing and exposing those conflicting systems of belief. So (notwithstanding that I'm still not 100% sure that its the right of the photographer to make such a decision unilaterally, not least of which because they are highly likely to have an overinflated view of this supposed 'good' they are trying to achieve) at least there is a deliberate process of judgement going on.</p>

<p>However... and it is a big however... I am not at all sure that any more than say 0.01% of all 'cross-cultural' images are taken with such serious and noble goals in mind in the first place.</p>

<p>My educated guess is that there is an immensely much larger population of photographers who just 'want to take a nice picture' rather than create some clear and powerful message about the human condition.</p>

<p>And attached to this first guess is a second one - which is that this much larger population of photographers treat the deeply held beliefs that some cultures hold about the taking and use of their image as some kind of inconvenience to their perceived 'right' to take photos of whatever they want whenever they want, and then use their view that 'soul-stealing' (or whatever the belief system is) is 'nonsense' to retrospectively justify their disrespectful and insensitive actions.</p>

[lightwait]

<p>Bernard, thanks for the response. I'm not seeing the points I was trying to make reflected in your response. Let me try again.<br /> <br /> I was not making any assumption about the photographer's project in any way.<br /> <br /> I was revealing an inconsistency (a self deception) that believers make when making the sorts of arguments they do to justify (in some way) the unjustifiable. And the believers in mind were not the natives but rather those in this forum.<br /> <br /> When the jump is made from the particular to the general ('soul vs no soul' to 'belief vs belief'), important features are stripped away in order for one party to preserve his unjustified belief.<br /> <br /> In short, my argument is that we all use forms of justification and verification in living out our lives. These efforts are what makes a belief believable. The better the beliefs fit reality, the better they serve the believer. Our beliefs either serve us well or not so well depending on how well they match or meet the demands of our real environments.<br /> <br /> When the 'belief equals belief' argument is used, the particulars are purposefully (literally) left out of the equation, and in place, the pseudo logic (false equivocation) is supposed to win the day. I'm merely pointing out what is being done, namely that the support of one argument is ignored in order that the unsupported belief has equal footing.<br /> <br /> I am willing to concede that the kinds of encounters photographers have with their subjects, as outlined by the original post, are more social than anything, and thus manners and mutual respect should win the day. (I mean, unless you are fluent in the native tongue, and your education levels are similar, a dialectic on the nature of belief and imaginative entities is usually going to be out of the question). But in any kind of philosophical exchange (as opposed to a street encounter with a native), it's important to see what is going on and to get it out there on the table.<br /> <br /> The table we're at is the philosophy of photography forum, so I was trying to say something of value in that respect.<br /> <br /> To repeat my position: It should be enough for the native to indicate that he or she does not want to be part of your project. However, to toss in a religious explanation is uncalled for but certainly lies within the bounds of acceptable human behavior.<br /> <br /> And I do wonder if perhaps it (the soul stealing defense) is merely a learned strategy handed down through generations by the locals because it's known to work on many gullible Westerners.</p>

[bmm]

<p><em>And I do wonder if perhaps it (the soul stealing defense) is merely a learned strategy handed down through generations by the locals because it's known to work on many gullible Westerners.</em><br>

<em></em><br>

...maybe that's not so different to my choosing to curiously, suddenly not have any loose change ('...sorry mate...') when approached by a street beggar in Sydney rather than engaging each and every one in a complex and sensitive argument about my choice based on Australian social welfare policy and economic structures. One chooses to (and needs to) use short-hand, euphemisms, white-lies all the time in life or one gets totally bogged down.</p>

<p>The question is, do they have any obligation to explain themselves even to the non-gullible ones? Or should we just accept their "no" and move on?</p>

<p>Also lets not flatly discount the religious explanation as 'uncalled for'. For example - though I don't understand it obviously - Australian aboriginals have a very strictly and deeply felt traditions which forbid the viewing of images of deceased people. In many tribal groups they are not even allowed to mention dead people's names. The taking and subsequent use of a photograph against these norms would be deeply hurtful to many of them (indeed our national television stations are required to broadcast formal warnings when they re-run any program in which aboriginal persons have been filmed who may since have died).</p>

<p>Thats a comment on the back part of your post. On the earlier comments, this is an interesting dilemma. Of course I believe that not all beliefs have the same value, and that some are closer to 'reality' than others (that said, this comes with a large responsibility to accept that my judgement on this issue of proximity to reality may in fact be totally wrong). I would however ask you to include within your definition of 'real environment' a notion of 'social environment'. If a belief is aligned to the beliefs of many in a community, reflected in traditions, social norms, etc then its fit is enhanced irrespective of its inherent logic.</p>

<p>My final comment is on your words 'unjustified belief'. It makes me question whether there is such a thing, in the first person at least. No-one believes just for fun. Beliefs are there as the core of each person's understanding (operating model if you will) of the world and their place in it. So maybe a belief can only be 'unjustified' to a third party who holds another belief.</p>

<p>And I guess this all brings me back to my original comment on this issue. We are putting our beliefs ahead of those of our subjects. We are choosing to act on our view that those beliefs are 'unjustified' or 'not proximate to reality' in preference to realising that they may in fact be strongly justified to our subjects, and might be central to their realities and their lives. We are choosing to be absolutist about thngs which are not absolute at all.</p>

[mubeen_mughal]

<p>Mr. Bernard Mills: I have enjoyed and savoured each and every one of your postings to this thread. <br>

One a different note, Kenelm Burridge's "Encountering Aboriginies" was a remarkable and interesting read, for me.</p>

[lightwait]

<p>"Australian aboriginals have a very strictly and deeply felt traditions which forbid the viewing of images of deceased people."<br /><br>

It's one of a bazillion beliefs built upon superstition. This is what our species does when in a state of ignorance regarding aspects of physical causation -- the 'lost generations' is a perfect example of beliefs run a muck (in this case, yours, if you happen to be one of the invaders). <br /><br>

We are the species that makes stuff up ... but as long as some of us continue to ask why, we will have a future.</p>

[lightwait]

<p>"And I guess this all brings me back to my original comment on this issue. We are putting our beliefs ahead of those of our subjects."<br /> <br /> <br /> I guess I missed that. If I had seen it I would have pointed out that you are making the same error of equivocation. The knowledge that "the camera won't steal your soul" is factual; based on laws of mechanics and optics. The belief that "the camera will steal the soul" is not. No amount of sympathy and respect for cultural myth will change this.</p>

[lightwait]

<p>And finally, I guess I should have written this in all caps:</p>

<p>"I am willing to concede that the kinds of encounters photographers have with their subjects, as outlined by the original post, are more social than anything, and thus manners and mutual respect should win the day."</p>

[aplumpton]

<p>In some cultures (and in the case of some individual subjects) staring at others is taken as offensive. In others, it is quite acceptable, up to a point. Photography also engages the person who is being photographed, even if you surreptitiously make that contact and rush off to your monitor and Photoshop to view and evaluate the image. That engagement is not something you can completely control, simply because you happen to want make a picture which includes the other person.</p>

<p>Bernard, Muben and others have it right, I believe. Respect should be shown to those photographed. If there is a negative reaction or you are amongst those that may feel the photo will steal their soul, or wish not to be photographed for whatever reason, so be it. Showing respect for the other, whether you share their religious or philosophical ideas or not, is an approach that is correct and courteous in the context of photographing others.</p>

[bmm]

<p>Thomas K - I have to say I just shake my head.</p>

<p>Because the bleedingly obvious response to "<em>No amount of sympathy and respect for cultural myth will change this</em>"<em> </em>is that no amount of rational scientific analysis will change the views of people who hold deep cutural or religious beliefs.</p>

<p>The thing is, I happen to believe like you that a camera cannot steal a soul (actually to be more truthful I do not believe in the concept of souls so I don't believe there is anything to steal in the first place).</p>

<p>But even more strong is my belief that when we walk this earth, in almost every circumstance we are guests in a shared space. Expecially (but not only) when we are in a country or community which is different from us. And so it is absolutely our duty to behave ourselves in a manner which is not offensive to those people or places who are our 'hosts' or 'fellow sharers', irrespective of the cold rational logic (or lack thereof) behind their traditions and behavioural norms. And I think this particularly strongly in terms of photography where I am 'capturing' something - a person's image - which is very intimitely theirs, and to which I have absolutely no fundamental right irrespective of circumstance or logic.</p>

<p>Now, be very clear that I am not equivocating. I do hold beliefs and I do make judgements on them. But in turning those judgements into behaviour I apply a certain number of filters and 'checks', because most of the time in life - and especially in social situation - there are factors at play which are <strong>far more</strong> important than my own assessment of what is right or wrong, truth or myth.</p>

<p>Finally stop and generalise for a minute. Reverse this upon yourself. What you are advocating is that people should be able to treat you in total accordance with their beliefs and learned logic, and totally disregard yours (what is more, professing some kind of 'rational superiority' as a justification for continuing their behaviours irrespective of any objections you may have). Remember as a part of this that you need to be more humble about the western scientific orthodoxy upon which you so heavily lean - after all at many points in history it has been severely wrong (flat earth anyone?) and it probably will be seen to be wrong again in the future. I'm not disputing the whole science 'thing', in fact I am a relatively conservative western thinker who is drawn heavily towards scientific method and philosophy as the core of my own belief system and 'world view'. But my point is we cannot just make absolutist blanket assumptions about 'rightness' just because something seems pretty ok to us... there is a chance that we've got it very wrong.</p>

<p>A couple of threads of thought there, but I will try and draw them together. What I am saying is that you are arguing on what is 'right' and 'wrong'. You are saying that some beliefs stack up better than others. I am not disputing that. Intellectually I am not a cultural relativist. So I get where you are coming from in the 'battle of ideas'. And I do think that we photographers need to be having this battle with our <strong>audiences</strong>, every day and with every image.</p>

<p>But <strong>not</strong> with our <strong>subjects</strong>. The battle of ideas and beliefs has nothing to do with subjects. Taking someone's image with their consent is like receiving a gift. Taking it without is a violation. Its as simple as that.</p>

[luis_g]

<p> Thomas K, that bit in "Oh Brother Where Art Thou" comes from the Robert Johnson story. He was a guitarist who reportedly sold his soul to the Devil at the crossroads between hwy 49 & 61 in Clarksdale in exchange for guitar chops. I don't know if it's true or not, but here's the man playing afterwards....</p>

<p>

<p>

<p>

<p> I imagine more than a few photographers would benefit from a similar trade.</p>

<p> If the subject objects, for whatever reason, just walk away. Plenty of documentaries have been made (cine and still) of Australian aborigines, BTW.</p>

<p> </p>

[stephen_hipperson]

<p>For what it's worth..<br>

a soul can only be stolen from a person who is aware of the theft, i.e. they need to be aware of you taking their photograph - their condition becomes psychosomatic.<br>

in all these questions of candid photography, for me the critical question is 'Do you have more right to photograph me than I have a right not to be photographed.'</p>

 

[william l. palminteri]

<blockquote>

<p ><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=2416431"><em>Stephen Hipperson</em></a><em> </em><a href="../member-status-icons"></a><em>, Sep 15, 2009; 12:48 p.m.</em><br>

<em>For what it's worth..<br />a soul can only be stolen from a person who is aware of the theft, i.e. they need to be aware of you taking their photograph - their condition becomes psychosomatic.</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>That's what I would've thought too.</p>

<p>Bill P. </p>

[lou korell]

<p>Well if film photography does steal your soul, digital probably does too. But you can then put it back in Photoshop. :)</p>

[bmm]

<p>Stephen -<br>

<em>a soul can only be stolen from a person who is aware of the theft, i.e. they need to be aware of you taking their photograph - their condition becomes psychosomatic.</em><br>

I disagree. Thats like saying some old voyeur pervert who is looking at your 12yo duaghter through the bathroom window as she showers is only doing a bad thing if your daughter sees him. <strong>Wrong!</strong> The act is bad because it <em>would</em> not gain consent were the question to be asked. That is the test which needs to be applied.</p>

<p>Oth the other hand... you comment "<em>'Do you have more right to photograph me than I have a right not to be photographed</em>" I think is a perfect one to ask, and I find it very hard to think of instances in which the answer isn't a very big NO.</p>

[lightwait]

<p>"Thomas K - I have to say I just shake my head. Because the bleedingly obvious response to "No amount of sympathy and respect for cultural myth will change this" is that no amount of rational scientific analysis will change the views of people who hold deep cutural or religious beliefs."<br /> <br /> Bernard, look at what your rhetoric is doing, it makes the same categorical mistake that the false equivocation does. You are suggesting a mirror relationship exists between myth-based and fact-based, but only things that are based in fact, cast reflections (to extend the metaphor), myths do not. <br /> <br /> A mirror relationship DOES exist in that each of us are human beings and are centers of awareness and action, but it doesn't follow that our concepts are equal.<br /> <br /> Yes, it is certainly true that I may not change the views of the native believer, but it is not a certainty by any means. Still, whether or not I can change the native's view is irrelevant in terms of the philosophical issue of ascertaining veracity independent of our respective tribal beliefs. Incidentally, in your own country, plenty of natives no longer believe in the dreaming. So it's clear that education and exposure to outsiders can (and does) work.<br /> <br /> And besides, I wouldn't be arguing with the 'stealable soulist', I would be shooting something or someone else, as I have already indicated, but I would still be correct in my knowledge of there being no such thing as a 'material soul.' <br /> <br /> What more do you understand me as saying?</p>

[stephen_hipperson]

<p><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=3894248">Bernard Mills</a> <a href="../member-status-icons"><img title="Subscriber" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/sub2.gif" alt="" /><img title="Frequent poster" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/2rolls.gif" alt="" /></a>, Sep 15, 2009; 07:38 p.m.<br>

I disagree. Thats like saying some old voyeur pervert who is looking at your 12yo duaghter through the bathroom window as she showers is only doing a bad thing if your daughter sees him. <strong>Wrong!</strong> The act is bad because it <em>would</em> not gain consent were the question to be asked. That is the test which needs to be applied.<br>

Well done in picking a 'sensitive' area, which makes it difficult to diagree with you. However, we need to differentiate between 'being wrong' and 'doing harm'. 'Wrong' is defined by society, 'doing harm' is offensive - in the sense that an particular individual receives physical or mental harm. If I take your picture, you don't know and I never show it to anyone, no harm is done, but it may be 'wrong'. Photography is in itself a non-harmful process, it captures the light that you have discarded as unwanted (elements of light will be retained by you as part of your biological function). I'd also argue that we need to differentiate be between the act of photography and it's use. The creation of a photograph can only be in the control of a photographer, the use of a photograph can be performed by anyone. so the old perv, may very well be snapping away, it is 'wrong', but no harm is done until either my fictional daughter sees it, or it causes offence to others or if I, or my wife sees it, the old perv won't take another photograph. <br>

A person's soul is fundamental to their being, if they don't have one then you can't steal it. But if they believe they do, it must be treated with the utmost respect.<br>

Apologies if the format of this message is a bit of a mess, I'm trying to get the grips with the technicals of forum use at the moment.</p>

[lightwait]

<p>"A person's soul is fundamental to their being, if they don't have one then you can't steal it. But if they believe they do, it must be treated with the utmost respect."</p>

<p>We don't treat the delusions of the maniac with the utmost respect. We don't treat the logical errors of the neophyte with utmost respect. So why treat the rantings of the mystic, the repetitious copying of the fool, or the uninformed literalistic pronouncements of the fundamentalist with our utmost respect? Inquiring minds want to know.</p>

[nvanzanten]

<p>Answer to the question: Of course it steals the soul, if it is a good picture, and of course if there is one, but of course, if they don't have one, well, the picture contrives the soul, and not always with respect but always perceived by the viewer.</p>

[bmm]

<p><strong>Stephen</strong> - I broadly agree with your distinction. However surely it is any decent person's intent to do neither... And it does handily separate in this argument the question of whether one shold only be dissuaded by active objection.</p>

<p><strong>Thomas K</strong> - Because these people are not generally neophytes, maniacs or fools. Because these people see our blind faith in western scientific method* as fundamentalism, just as you see their beliefs thereas. But most importantly, again, we should not expect to have to be given a good reason not to take what is not ours to take. The issue is consent, not the logic behind the consent.</p>

<p>*I've put a star next to western scientific method because the thought came to mind that in fact our own scientific philosophy is awfully cautious of declaring something as fact. Though I'm going back a few years now in my education, I seem to recall that the basic model is to put up null and alternate hypotheses, and to conduct experiments which aim for the alternate hypothesis not to be discarded (at whatever confidence interval is chosen). So even at the core of our own system of beliefs is this idea that there isn't 'fact' but rather there is a collection of hypotheses/ideas that seem to stand up to current attempts to disprove them, and that therefore constitute the current accepted body of knowledge. I'm obviously pointing this out as a reason to not be so absolutist about what we, the 'rational west', apparently know...</p>

[stephen_hipperson]

<p > </p>

 

<p><em> I broadly agree with your distinction. However surely it is any decent person's intent to do neither... And it does handily separate in this argument the question of whether one shold only be dissuaded by active objection.</em></p>

 

<p>Unfortunately, 'decent' as a definition of human behaviour seems to be a thing of the past. For myself, I take few if any candid shots, unless they are of my close family. Unfortunately, I also firmly believe that the true personality of an individual can only be 'caught' in a candid shot (in the sense of the subject not knowing it's being taken) . Anything else is affected.<br>

At the end of the day <em>'maniac'</em> can only be defined from a certain perspective. The <em>'maniac' </em>should also respect the view of others. As to not treating the mistakes of <em>neophytes</em> with respect, I'm afraid a teacher who fails to do this is in the wrong job, 'honest' mistake are respected by me. "<br>

<em>So why treat the rantings of the mystic, the repetitious copying of the fool, or the uninformed literalistic pronouncements of the fundamentalist with our utmost respect?</em> <br>

Personally I'm not pompous enough to think they're necessarily wrong and I'm necessarily right. "Doing harm" applies to all, the fundamentalist, as well as me. <br>

It does all come back to the question 'How can you do something, which is so simply not done, that does harm to somebody else?' If an individual believes that I do them harm (take their soul) by taking their photograph, how could I possibly continue to take it - is this not an offensive, aggressive act? Just because one believes that souls are twaddle, that the existance of an after life is impossible so therefore it can't exist or in the purity of science, doesn't mean that anothers beliefs are unworthy of consideration. We are not computers, we are human - all of us, not just some of us.</p>

 

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Bernard--</p>

<p>I don't think I have to be absolutist to believe that the scientific model has more practical validity than the fundamentalist religious model. I merely have to be willing to make a judgment. Which I do. The reason Apartheid ended in South Africa is because the world judged that, despite the South African government's belief in its tradition and its belief that our own ways of equal treatment of human beings was simply our "fundamental" view of humanity, they were wrong and we are right. I'm glad the world made that judgment and effected the changes it did. I think those kinds of judgments are and should be made all the time. Recognizing the equal ferocity of two opposing beliefs seems reasonable toward understanding how people work and why they act and think the way they do. But recognizing that equality of <em>strength</em> of beliefs does not mean to me that all beliefs are equal. Some are evil, some are wrong, some are stupid, some must be dealt with and suppressed.</p>

<p>If an adult came to me and said he still believed in the tooth fairy, I'd try to educate him, no matter the strength of his belief and no matter if he felt my belief that the tooth fairy does not exist was as fundamentally based as his own. I'd feel perfectly justified in judging his belief to be ridiculous even while recognizing he thought mine as ridiculous . . . because I'd know he was nuts.</p>

<p>So I much more agree with Thomas's logic in this thread and I think he's eloquently explained a lot about beliefs and he's given a strong argument against moral relativism, which I see your own argument easily leading to.</p>

<p>That being said, I am much more inclined to yours and Stephen's approach regarding the photographic question. Generally speaking, I shoot others from a standpoint of respect and I try to avoid exploiting people. It would be rare that my need to take a shot would trump in my own mind someone else's request for privacy. Their reason would be secondary to their desire in this case. I would have no trouble judging their reason absolutely ridiculous, even false. I might have little or no respect for that reason, and in the case of souls that would be precisely my position. But that wouldn't stop me from respecting their request not to have their photograph taken.</p>

[lightwait]

<p>"Because these people are not generally neophytes, maniacs or fools. Because these people see our blind faith in western scientific method* as fundamentalism, just as you see their beliefs thereas."<br /> <br /> These statements are nonsense. And for your information, Blind faith refers to faith without reason. You don't know who these people are or might be. In contrast, I am defining them by their stated beliefs. You are running in circles. Why?<br /> <br /> "But most importantly, again, we should not expect to have to be given a good reason not to take what is not ours to take."</p>

<p>You are making the huge leap that there is something there that is stolen. You are merely playing a shell game with words.</p>

<p>And as I have already repeated several times, I agree that if someone objects to you taking his picture, then courtesy dictates that we don't. (Please indicate that you grasp this by nodding once, please.)<br>

For the record, the matter of giving good reason is what is done in a philosophical discussion ... you know -- HERE, in this forum.</p>

[lightwait]

<p>Hi Fred,</p>

<p>"That being said, I am much more inclined to yours and Stephen's approach regarding the photographic question. Generally speaking, I shoot others from a standpoint of respect and I try to avoid exploiting people. It would be rare that my need to take a shot would trump in my own mind someone else's request for privacy. Their reason would be secondary to their desire in this case. I would have no trouble judging their reason absolutely ridiculous, even false. I might have little or no respect for that reason, and in the case of souls that would be precisely my position. But that wouldn't stop me from respecting their request not to have their photograph taken."</p>

<p>You wouldn't know it from Bernard's responses to mine, but this IS my approach as well. Thanks for your contributions to this discussion.</p>

[lightwait]

<p>Stephen,<br>

"Just because one believes that souls are twaddle, that the existance of an after life is impossible so therefore it can't exist or in the purity of science, doesn't mean that anothers beliefs are unworthy of consideration."</p>

<p>It is in considering beliefs (their articulated forms, and the basis for them), that we come to understand them.</p>

<p>Maybe you have something different in mind when you say 'consideration.'</p>

[lightwait]

<p>"As to not treating the mistakes of <em>neophytes</em> with respect, I'm afraid a teacher who fails to do this is in the wrong job, 'honest' mistake are respected by me. "</p>

<p>I am afraid you are mistaken. You respect the student, not the errors. Or, perhaps 'respect' is not the word you really wanted. We attempt to teach students how to find and correct error. We acknowledge error, we attempt to understand it (as a means to accessing a student's processing), we do not respect it.</p>

<p> </p>