The Body and the Archive
In “The Body and the Archive”, photographer Allan Sekula introduces the concept of “the other” when he describes photography as “a system of representation capable of functioning both honorifically and repressively”.[1] In particular, Sekula contrasts traditional portraiture provided for the “ceremonial presentation of the bourgeois self” by the privileged classes [2] to photographic portraiture which, as it developed and became more available through the latter part of the nineteenth century, allowed the depiction of less privileged classes.
Sekula argues that photography was used both honorifically and repressively at the same time. Certain early endorsers of photography such as Jane Welsh Carlyle and Marcus Aurelius Root remarked on the beneficial aspects of photographic portraiture for the working class, particularly in relation to preserving family memories.[3] Citing Elizabeth Eastlake, Sekula argues, however, that photography did not equalize the classes, but introduced a “new hierarchy of taste”.[4] Every photographic portrait “implicitly took place within a social and moral hierarchy”.[5] Therefore, every photographic portrait exists in what Sekula calls the “shadow archive that encompasses an entire social terrain while positioning individuals within that terrain”. Thus the archive “contains both…the visible bodies of heroes, leaders, moral exemplars, celebrities and those of the poor, the diseased, the insane, the criminal, the nonwhite, the female, and all other embodiments of the unworthy”.[6] As a result, Sekula argues, the photographic archive generally results in classification and “establish[es] and delimit[s] the terrain of the other”.
Early photography became a means to diagnose deviance and social pathology. This was a result of the confluence of a number of factors, including the increased use of photography by police, the popularity of physiognomy and phrenology, and acceptance of the theory of positivism. Sekula notes that there were “systematic efforts to regulate dangerous classes” as early as the 1840’s, eventually culminating in the widespread use of photography and the development of two different archiving systems to identify and regulate criminals through the use of photography.
The development of these archiving systems were encouraged by the widespread popularity during the mid-nineteenth century of physiognomy and phrenology, both of which are based on the belief that physical attributes of the body indicate inner character. Physiognomy looks at the head and the face and assigns significance to each feature based on character. Phrenology looks at the relationship between the shape of the skull and brain function. Johann Caspar Lavater argued that the “original language of Nature, written of the face of Man could be deciphered by a rigorous physiognomic science”.[7] Again, the concepts of typology and relativity are important. Citing Foucalt, Sekula states the criminal element cannot be disassociated from the law-abiding citizens of society, which distinguishes itself from the “other” through biotyping.[8] Sekula returns to this theme in describing the first application of photography in phrenological analysis, which he states was based on comparison to a larger archive in which “the zones of deviance and respectability could be clearly demarcated”.[9]
Positivism, associated with Auguste Comte, a French philosopher, holds that society, like the physical world, operates according to general laws, and that laws could be discovered based on the observable relations between phenomena.[10] Thus, evidence received by the senses was believed to be more valuable. Since photography presents a visual image of an object, it was thought to produce “empirical” or sensory evidence. Sekula notes that Henry Fox Talbot, in The Pencil of Nature, states a photo of china on a shelf would constitute a “visual document of ownership”.[11] Sekula notes the “denotative univocally of the legal image” was then extended to a new object – the criminal body.[12] As Sekula later points out, however, “optical empiricism” was only one part of “a larger ensemble: a bureaucratic clerical statistical system of ‘intelligence’”[13] which sought to exert control.
The idea of an archive as “an encyclopedic repository of exchangeable images” connected to a “single code of equivalency” may have been a positivist’s dream. – as stated by Francois Arago, photography is a medium “in which objects present mathematically their forms”; able to “reduce nature to its geometrical essence”. Sekula points out the fallacy of assuming that images (unlike banknotes) can be reduced to “conventional lexical units” (or that there is no circumstantial or individualist elements to photographs. Second, he points out that the sheer number of photographs makes such a system impossible.[14]
Paris police official, Alphonse Bertillon, and Francis Galton, the British founder of the science of eugenics, each produced a system to describe the physical attributes of criminals. While both were based on the categorization of the visual, they also recognized the insufficiency of visual evidence alone and utilized statistics to refine their models. Despite their similar goals, the two systems were, as Sekula points out, “two methodological poles of the positivist attempts to define and regulate social deviance”.
Bertillon focused on individuality in constructing his system. He combined photos and physical measurements of actual individuals, which were then catalogued with standardized written notes on separate cards which were organized in a statistically based filing system.[15] Galton, on the other hand, used composite portraiture to determine an abstract “criminal type”. He did so by superimposing multiple photos of individuals’ faces to generalize an “average” or “general” type of criminal.
The two systems further diverged in terms of their underlying purposes. Bertillon was focused on the practicalities of managing an actual criminal population and identify recidivists in order to reduce crime. By breaking down information into manageable elements, his system allowed for the ability of lower level employees to process information for purposes of identification. Galton, on the other hand, was the father of eugenics. Unlike Bertillon, he was not directly involved in criminology. He believed in biologic pre-determinism and that society would be bettered by selective determination. To the extent that social deviants can be eliminated, society would be strengthened by the increase of the socially desirable. While Bertillon may have supported long sentences for habitual criminals in order to reduce overall rates of crime, Galton supported long sentences in order to reduce the probability of their producing “low-class offspring”.[16]
Both Bertillon and Galton embraced the concept of the “average man”, a concept created by an early sociologist and promoter of social statistics, Adolphe Quetelet. Quetelet argued that aggregation of social data reveals a “regularity of occurrence” that evidences “determinate social laws”.[17] In 1835, Quetelet published a model of human social behavior. He calculated an “average man” by creating a statistical “summary” of physical, moral, and intellectual qualities.[18] In this regard, Quetelet’s views were closer to Galton’s than Bertillon’s as he did not seek to map the characteristics of individuals, but to map society as a whole. Borrowing from astronomy and probability theory, he noted that large aggregates of social data fell into a bell-shaped curve. Quetelet believed that the largest part, or center, of the curve defined normality, which he also equated with goodness and beauty, with the smaller parts equated with pathology, ideas consistent with eugenics. Quetelet’s aggregation of data was closer to Galton’s composite photographs in concept.
Sekula argues that photography was used both honorifically and repressively at the same time. Certain early endorsers of photography such as Jane Welsh Carlyle and Marcus Aurelius Root remarked on the beneficial aspects of photographic portraiture for the working class, particularly in relation to preserving family memories.[3] Citing Elizabeth Eastlake, Sekula argues, however, that photography did not equalize the classes, but introduced a “new hierarchy of taste”.[4] Every photographic portrait “implicitly took place within a social and moral hierarchy”.[5] Therefore, every photographic portrait exists in what Sekula calls the “shadow archive that encompasses an entire social terrain while positioning individuals within that terrain”. Thus the archive “contains both…the visible bodies of heroes, leaders, moral exemplars, celebrities and those of the poor, the diseased, the insane, the criminal, the nonwhite, the female, and all other embodiments of the unworthy”.[6] As a result, Sekula argues, the photographic archive generally results in classification and “establish[es] and delimit[s] the terrain of the other”.
Early photography became a means to diagnose deviance and social pathology. This was a result of the confluence of a number of factors, including the increased use of photography by police, the popularity of physiognomy and phrenology, and acceptance of the theory of positivism. Sekula notes that there were “systematic efforts to regulate dangerous classes” as early as the 1840’s, eventually culminating in the widespread use of photography and the development of two different archiving systems to identify and regulate criminals through the use of photography.
The development of these archiving systems were encouraged by the widespread popularity during the mid-nineteenth century of physiognomy and phrenology, both of which are based on the belief that physical attributes of the body indicate inner character. Physiognomy looks at the head and the face and assigns significance to each feature based on character. Phrenology looks at the relationship between the shape of the skull and brain function. Johann Caspar Lavater argued that the “original language of Nature, written of the face of Man could be deciphered by a rigorous physiognomic science”.[7] Again, the concepts of typology and relativity are important. Citing Foucalt, Sekula states the criminal element cannot be disassociated from the law-abiding citizens of society, which distinguishes itself from the “other” through biotyping.[8] Sekula returns to this theme in describing the first application of photography in phrenological analysis, which he states was based on comparison to a larger archive in which “the zones of deviance and respectability could be clearly demarcated”.[9]
Positivism, associated with Auguste Comte, a French philosopher, holds that society, like the physical world, operates according to general laws, and that laws could be discovered based on the observable relations between phenomena.[10] Thus, evidence received by the senses was believed to be more valuable. Since photography presents a visual image of an object, it was thought to produce “empirical” or sensory evidence. Sekula notes that Henry Fox Talbot, in The Pencil of Nature, states a photo of china on a shelf would constitute a “visual document of ownership”.[11] Sekula notes the “denotative univocally of the legal image” was then extended to a new object – the criminal body.[12] As Sekula later points out, however, “optical empiricism” was only one part of “a larger ensemble: a bureaucratic clerical statistical system of ‘intelligence’”[13] which sought to exert control.
The idea of an archive as “an encyclopedic repository of exchangeable images” connected to a “single code of equivalency” may have been a positivist’s dream. – as stated by Francois Arago, photography is a medium “in which objects present mathematically their forms”; able to “reduce nature to its geometrical essence”. Sekula points out the fallacy of assuming that images (unlike banknotes) can be reduced to “conventional lexical units” (or that there is no circumstantial or individualist elements to photographs. Second, he points out that the sheer number of photographs makes such a system impossible.[14]
Paris police official, Alphonse Bertillon, and Francis Galton, the British founder of the science of eugenics, each produced a system to describe the physical attributes of criminals. While both were based on the categorization of the visual, they also recognized the insufficiency of visual evidence alone and utilized statistics to refine their models. Despite their similar goals, the two systems were, as Sekula points out, “two methodological poles of the positivist attempts to define and regulate social deviance”.
Bertillon focused on individuality in constructing his system. He combined photos and physical measurements of actual individuals, which were then catalogued with standardized written notes on separate cards which were organized in a statistically based filing system.[15] Galton, on the other hand, used composite portraiture to determine an abstract “criminal type”. He did so by superimposing multiple photos of individuals’ faces to generalize an “average” or “general” type of criminal.
The two systems further diverged in terms of their underlying purposes. Bertillon was focused on the practicalities of managing an actual criminal population and identify recidivists in order to reduce crime. By breaking down information into manageable elements, his system allowed for the ability of lower level employees to process information for purposes of identification. Galton, on the other hand, was the father of eugenics. Unlike Bertillon, he was not directly involved in criminology. He believed in biologic pre-determinism and that society would be bettered by selective determination. To the extent that social deviants can be eliminated, society would be strengthened by the increase of the socially desirable. While Bertillon may have supported long sentences for habitual criminals in order to reduce overall rates of crime, Galton supported long sentences in order to reduce the probability of their producing “low-class offspring”.[16]
Both Bertillon and Galton embraced the concept of the “average man”, a concept created by an early sociologist and promoter of social statistics, Adolphe Quetelet. Quetelet argued that aggregation of social data reveals a “regularity of occurrence” that evidences “determinate social laws”.[17] In 1835, Quetelet published a model of human social behavior. He calculated an “average man” by creating a statistical “summary” of physical, moral, and intellectual qualities.[18] In this regard, Quetelet’s views were closer to Galton’s than Bertillon’s as he did not seek to map the characteristics of individuals, but to map society as a whole. Borrowing from astronomy and probability theory, he noted that large aggregates of social data fell into a bell-shaped curve. Quetelet believed that the largest part, or center, of the curve defined normality, which he also equated with goodness and beauty, with the smaller parts equated with pathology, ideas consistent with eugenics. Quetelet’s aggregation of data was closer to Galton’s composite photographs in concept.
[1] Allan Sekula. "The Body and the Archive." October, vol. 39 (1986), 6. JSTOR. https://www-jstor-org.libproxy.chapman.edu/
[2] Allan Sekula. "The Body and the Archive." October, vol. 39 (1986), 6. JSTOR. https://www-jstor-org.libproxy.chapman.edu/
[3] Allan Sekula. "The Body and the Archive." October, vol. 39 (1986), 8. JSTOR. https://www-jstor-org.libproxy.chapman.edu/
[4] Allan Sekula. "The Body and the Archive." October, vol. 39 (1986), 6. JSTOR. https://www-jstor-org.libproxy.chapman.edu/
[5] Allan Sekula. "The Body and the Archive." October, vol. 39 (1986), 10. JSTOR. https://www-jstor-org.libproxy.chapman.edu/
[6] Allan Sekula. "The Body and the Archive." October, vol. 39 (1986), 10. JSTOR. https://www-jstor-org.libproxy.chapman.edu/
[7] Allan Sekula. "The Body and the Archive." October, vol. 39 (1986), 11. JSTOR. https://www-jstor-org.libproxy.chapman.edu/
[8] Allan Sekula. "The Body and the Archive." October, vol. 39 (1986), 15. JSTOR. https://www-jstor-org.libproxy.chapman.edu/
[9] Allan Sekula. "The Body and the Archive." October, vol. 39 (1986), 14. JSTOR. https://www-jstor-org.libproxy.chapman.edu/
[10] Trevor Pearce. "Science Organized": Positivism and the Metaphysical Club, 1865-1875." July, (2015), 444. Journal of the History of Ideas. https://www-jstor-org.libproxy.chapman.edu/stable/i40163060
[11] Allan Sekula. "The Body and the Archive." October, vol. 39 (1986), 6. JSTOR. https://www-jstor-org.libproxy.chapman.edu/
[12] Allan Sekula. "The Body and the Archive." October, vol. 39 (1986), 6. JSTOR. https://www-jstor-org.libproxy.chapman.edu/
[13] Allan Sekula. "The Body and the Archive." October, vol. 39 (1986), 17. JSTOR. https://www-jstor-org.libproxy.chapman.edu/
[14] Allan Sekula. "The Body and the Archive." October, vol. 39 (1986), 17. JSTOR. https://www-jstor-org.libproxy.chapman.edu/ October 39 : 6. Doi:10.2307/778312
[15] Allan Sekula. "The Body and the Archive." October, vol. 39 (1986), 18. JSTOR. https://www-jstor-org.libproxy.chapman.edu/
[16] Allan Sekula. "The Body and the Archive." October, vol. 39 (1986), 50. JSTOR. https://www-jstor-org.libproxy.chapman.edu/
[17] Allan Sekula. "The Body and the Archive." October, vol. 39 (1986), 20. JSTOR. https://www-jstor-org.libproxy.chapman.edu/
[18] Aaron Sheon, "Parisian social statistics: Gavarni, Le Diable a Paris, and early Realism." June, (1984), 143. Art Journal. https://www-jstor-org.libproxy.chapman.edu/stable/776753?seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents