Throughout his book The Right to Look, Nicholas Mirzoeff analyzes two core concepts, which are visuality and countervisuality. The author discusses the ways in which these ideas are employed to form and perceive contemporary society. First, Mirzoeff introduces the idea of visuality, which, he argues, is a means by which the dominant group may oppress and enslave the less fortunate by means of hierarchical image and data networks. Mirzoeff continues by arguing that there are three complexes of visuality. These complexes include military industrial, imperialism and plantation slavery complex (Mirzoeff 487). After that, the author goes into great length describing each complex and how it serves as a means of establishing and maintaining power through various methods of division and categorization. While doing so, he demonstrates how enslavement, colonization, and anti-war activists have countered each visual complexity (Mirzoeff 485). In other words, according to Mirzoeff, people are not permitted to perceive the truth because visuality is constructed in such a manner that they (the oppressed) cannot see through the haze.
In the second part of the book, Mirzoeff focuses on discussing the other core concept of countervisuality, which he also calls the appropriateness look. According to Mirzoeff, countervisuality is not just a technique to view things from a different perspective than what the oppressors are told to perceive, but also a strategy for overthrowing the hierarchical order for oppression (Mirzoeff 480). The right to gaze, in Mirzoeff’s view, is the freedom to investigate what the oppressor claims to be true in order to determine the truth (Knudsen et al. 25). This freedom also allows the oppressed to uncover reality from whatever the oppressor says. According to Mirzoeff, the development in globalization has greatly contributed to the split character of the international work of imagination (Mirzoeff 480). This has further discouraged all aspects of creativity at the global space.
I am in agreement with Mirzoeff on the idea that countervisibility and visuality does not have to relate to an individual. According to the author, these ideas can revolve around the globe (Mirzoeff 482). The question of whether evolution is real or not has been a hot topic for many years. Many people do not accept evolution and will try to convince others in society that it is not true. However, scientists and researchers have discovered concrete proof and carried out various investigations to show that evolution is, in fact, a truth. In this instance, the visuality being seen is that of those attempting to disprove evolution as a fact, while the countervisuality may be seen as that of those attempting to present the truth (Knudsen et al. 85). In essence, Mirzoeff thinks that people need to fire the operator in order for a new vision to emerge if they want society to cease trusting in systems.
I am also in agreement with the author that visuality and countervisuality tactics are still being used today. Example includes how the media is portrayed in the society. In most situations, people are taught not to trust the media because of their lack of trustworthiness and their ease of previewing in order to deceive viewers. The media has attempted to unearth the truth occasionally, allowing society to view the information for what it truly is. People frequently observe the use of visuality in politics, and the media frequently use countervisuality to elucidate the reality (Mirzoeff 481). In the right to see, Mirzoeff makes reference to the first complex, which he describes as slavery being the first visuality to construct an oppressive figure (the slave owner) and an authoritative figure (slaves.) One can see the link between the first complex and the example, much as how in the government vs the media debate. In this case, people may perceive the government as the supreme authority and the media as the oppressor who is seeking to expose the truth.
Works Cited
Knudsen, Britta, T., Munsya, S., Lusalusa, B.L., Williams, S.C. “Decolonial Countervisuality.” Decolonizing Colonial Heritage. Routledge, vol. 45, no. 1, 2021, pp. 255-273.
Mirzoeff, Nicholas. “The right to look.” Critical Inquiry, vol. 37, no. 3, 2011, pp. 473-496.