Step 1: shock. “Oh my God!”Step 2: sorrow. “That’s so

awful. I can’t look, but I also can’t turn away.”Step 3: anger. “Who would do such a thing? I want horrible things to happen to them.” These are the intended reactions of Illuminating visual prac-tice. The term, illuminating, as explained by esteemed historian Rebecca Adekman, is explained as a movement where the logic presumes that “once provided with enough visual evidence of state violence and the pains taken to conceal it, informed citizens will begin to hold their govern-ment to accoount.” The goal is to shock the viewer into getting angry, thereby creating a desire to get involved and do something about it. The question remains, is that what it does? The prob-lem with Illuminating visual practice is that people want to see these images, we want to care,

we want to get angry, we want to be “enlightened,” hence the term Illuminating, but Americans have been fed illuminating practices so frequently with the accessi-bility of the internet that they are desensitized. They will only care for as long as the picture is in front of them, or maybe if they are particularly moved we will care long enough to share the photo on Facebook with an angry caption saying “Wake up! This is what’s happening in the world” or “This needs to end!” but what are we really doing to end it? By sharing the photo the Illuminating practice is spread-ing, but who is actually going to suddenly pursue a career in politics or law enforcement and then work to rewrite the whole system? This is not to say that Illuminating practices should not exist. It is simply critical that we rethink what the result is. How many Americas share a photo of a bloody child screaming with a

Does the method of Illuminating visual practice actually lead to change?

Illuminating

Illuminating

headline about military violence murdering people in the Middle East under the premise of the ‘War on Terror’ with the inten-tion of rallying up a group of people to take action? It is safe to say that sharing these photos makes Americas feel more social-ly, politically, and globally aware, despite a resounding lack of po-litical following among teenagers and young adults. Americans choose Illuminating visual prac-tices to quam their momentary internal unease at being com-pletely unaware of various events going on abroad because they are amazed that something was able to shock and move them long enough for them to really desire a change. These feelings are not dishonest, and it is not for a lack of care or heart that many Americans will never extend their passion beyond a social media outlet, it is simply that Illuminat-ing tactics are a match being sold as a light bulb. Probably the most common Illuminating visual image is ‘Gilligan’ also known as

‘The Man on the Box” or “The Hooded Man” from the deten-tion center in Abu Gharib, Iraq. The photo became famous after circulating all over the Internet. It shocked its viewers to know that American soldiers were conducting torture overseas. The photograph shows an Abu Gharib prisoner clocked and hooded in a fashion that is all too reminiscent of a blackened KKK garb. The man has his arms spread out and he is standing on a small box with wires attacked to his hands and neck, though they do not appear to be hooked up to anything. ‘Gilligan’ is under a torture technique that is both physically and psychologically taxing. He has to stand on the box for hours on end with the false knowledge that he will be electrocuted if he steps off the box. Part of the shock factor of the Abu Ghraib photos is that ‘Gilligan’ was not the only photo, others show America soldiers posing with a thumbs up over a pyramid of naked detainees, or an America soldier holding a dog

leash attached to a collar on another naked detainee. The juxtaposition of the smiling American soldiers against the backdrop of torture is ex-ceedingly disturbing and calls into question what the United States government is doing seemingly without the knowl-edge of the American people. In recent news the Garissa University massacre in Kenya that claimed 147 lives has gained little to no recog-nition on mainstream news channels. However, Illuminat-ing practice has sent several photos of gunned down students lying in blood pools across social media. Many of these posts compare the tragedy to the Charlie Hebdo shooting in France, which took place on January 7th. Though the Hebdo shooting claimed twelve lives, while the Garissa massacre claimed 147, mostly college student, lives, the Hebdo shooting made national headlines and was talked about for weeks. The

leash attached to a collar on another naked detainee. The juxtaposition of the smiling American soldiers against the backdrop of torture is ex-ceedingly disturbing and calls into question what the United States government is doing seemingly without the knowl-edge of the American people. In recent news the Garissa University massacre in Kenya that claimed 147 lives has gained little to no recog-nition on mainstream news channels. However, Illuminat-ing practice has sent several photos of gunned down students lying in blood pools across social media. Many of these posts compare the tragedy to the Charlie Hebdo shooting in France, which took place on January 7th. Though the Hebdo shooting claimed twelve lives, while the Garissa massacre claimed 147, mostly college student, lives, the Hebdo shooting made national headlines and was talked about for weeks. The

if a change is to be made wide-spread public blame, especially American blame in the case of Abu Gharib, is an unyielding approach, just as placing blame on Germans for Nazi action was ineffective. Though there are many cases against Illuminating practices, one of them being that it perpetuates Americans right to “look” regardless of the rights of the people in the photographs, to outright dismiss Illumination is equally ignorant. Illuminating practices are uttered with the intent of addressing the responsibility of the viewer, which ultimately creates a wall of defense, which effectively perpet-uates the harm Illuminati activists seek to remedy. Is there a way to be self-critical in a way that leads to self-reflection rather than defense? If so perhaps Illumi-nating techniques would be more effective, but to simply so easily discredits the perhaps behind this article, which is that it is not easy and there is not a simple solution. Does that anger you?

release of such grisly photo-graphs was an attempt to gain a reaction. Illuminati activates who were angered by the lack of news coverage for the Garissa Massacre used Illuminating shock tactics in order to get people fired up in an effort to gain supporters who are willing to make a change. If Illuminating practices do not result in people taking action beyond an angry Facebook post then perhaps it is time to consid-er other methods of invoking a lasting passion among Americans. In highlights a few illu-minating visual practices such as the photos from Abu Ghraib and the Garissa University Massacre that are likely remembered it is equally pertinent to acknowledge the tens of thousands of events and tragedies occurring daily across the globe that may nev-er receive recognition at all, by Illuminating practices or other. If the causes that are addressed by Illuminati groups are gaining such frivolous responses what is to be said for the events that are never heard about? Perhaps

CUT IT OUT

CUT IT OUT

hair is a statement, not only to other men, but to other women and themselves; it says, I have control over my appearance and my body, and I will chose a look that pleases me, rather than a look that pleases another. Thus, the outrage and backlash that women are receiving from men as a result of this look is a result of the patri-archy. Their ridicule is misogyny, and a fear of losing the carefully

are small ways in which women are rewriting the standards that have been placed on them. Hair is such a small thing that we place such high value on, which also makes it an easy first step for women to reclaim their identities. The scissors clipped the hair away and it fell, detached, to the floor, as did the patriarchal hold. For women, cutting off their

In recent years we’ve seen a new trend that is not only stylistic, but has also sparked a revolutionary movement.

In the last four years girls have traded in their long locks for short, pixie cuts. While several websites, name those centered around fraternity brothers, such as “Total Frat Move” and “Return of The King”, have condemned this style as “unfeminine” young adult women in their late teens and early twenties say that it is preciously that attitude that prompted the movement in the first place. For centuries women in the developed Western and Eastern world have centered their image around pleasing men, or rather, the patriarchal idea of what women should be. Accord-ing to these arbitrary standards, women should be thin and fragile looking, with long hair, beautiful soft features, and should readily be smiling, at all times, since we all know that women look better when they smile. However, patriarchal standards for women go beyond physical appearance. They include personality traits that are “feminine” and are “becoming” on a woman, such as meek and fragile, soft spoken, respectful, happy, desiring to please a husband, chaste, etc. It’s impossible to rewrite these constructs overnight, but there

“For women, cutting off their hair is a statement, not only to other men, but to other women and themselves; it says, I have

control over my appearance and my body, and I will chose a look

that pleases me, rather than a look that pleases another.”

knitted control that men have over women by making those who do not conform to male standards feel small and obsolete. I’m making men out to seem like the bad guys, however, for many, these ideals are so deeply rooted in society that many men do not realize that what they say is degrading and harmful. Women are guilty of this, as well, as men are expected to be “manly”, which means sleeping around with a lot of women, being physically strong and muscular, being a leaders who are assertive, protective, and dominant. However, the alpha dog is only one type of man and/or woman. Those traits are part of a personality, not a gender. The only way to correct these poor standards is to rewrite the history. The best way to summarize the underlining role privilege plays in our society is through this parable about a dog and a lizard: Today I’m feeling 101-y, I guess, so let’s talk about privilege.It’s a weird word, isn’t it? A common one in my circles, it’s one of the most basic, everyday concepts in social activism, we have lots of unhelpful snarky little phrases we like to use like “check your privilege” and a lot of our dialog conventions are built around a mutual agreement (or at least a mutual attempt at agreement) on who has privilege when and how to Cont. page 3

compensate for that. But nonethe-less fairly weird, opaque even if you’ve never used it before or aren’t part of those cir-cles. It’s also, the way we use it, very much a cultur-al marker – like “Tolkienesque” or “Hall-of-famer” or “heteronormative,” you can feel fairly assured that a large number of people will immediately stop listening and stop taking you seri-ously the moment you use it.The fact that people are stupid isn’t news, however. And actually that’s kind of why the concept of privilege is important – because privilege isn’t about being stupid. It’s not a bad thing, or a good thing, or something with a moral or value judgement of any kind at-tached to it. Having privilege isn’t something you can usually change, but that’s okay, because it’s not something you should be ashamed of, or feel bad about. Being told you have privilege, or that you’re privileged, isn’t an insult. It’s a reminder! The key to privilege isn’t worrying about having it, or trying to deny it, or apologize for it, or get rid of it. It’s just paying attention to it, and knowing what it means for you and the people around you. Having privilege is like having big feet. No one hates you for having big feet! They just want you to remember to be careful where you walk.At this point maybe I should actually start talking about what privilege is, huh?Well, we’re right here online, so let’s start with the Google defi-nition. As per standard for goo-gledefs, it’s hardly comprehensive, but entirely adequate for our purposes here, particularly the second entry:If you talk about privilege, you are talking about the power and advantage that only a small group of people have, usually because of

their wealth or their high social class.This is the basic heart of the idea. Privilege is an edge… a set of oppor-tunities, benefits and advantages that some people get and others don’t. For example, if it’s raining in the morning, and you get up, get dressed, climb into the nice warm car in your

garage, drive to the closed parking lot at work, and walk into the adja-cent building, you don’t get wet. If you go outside and wait at the bus stop, then walk between busses for your transfer, then walk from the bus stop to work, you do get wet. Not getting wet, then, is a privilege afforded you by car and garage ownership. So far, so straightfor-ward, right?Some examples of social privilege work exactly the same way, and they’re the easy ones to under-stand. For instance, a young black male driver is much, much more likely to get pulled over by the cops in America than an old white woman. Getting pulled over less, then – being given the benefit of the doubt by an authority figure – is in this case, a privilege of being white. (I’m not getting into the gender factor here, intersectional-ity is a whole different post.)Okay, again, so far so straight-forward. And thus far, there’s not much to be done about it, right? You’re not going to, as a white per-son, make a point of getting pulled over more often, and nobody’s ask-ing you to. (Well, I’m not, at least.) So if someone says “check your privilege,” if I tell you to watch where you’re putting your feet, what the hell does that mean?Well. This is where things get a bit tricky to understand. Because most examples of social privilege aren’t that straightforward. Let’s take, for example, a basic bit of male privilege:A man has the privilege of walking past a group of strange women without worrying about being

catcalled, or leered at, or having sexual suggestions tossed at him.A pretty common male response to this point is “that’s a privilege? I would love if a group of women did that to me.”And that response, right there, is a perfect shining example of male privilege.To explain how and why, I am going to throw a lengthy metaphor at you. In fact, it may even qualify as parable. Bear with me, because if it makes everything crystal clear, it will be worth the time.Imagine, if you will, a small house, built someplace cool-ish but not cold, perhaps somewhere in Ohio, and inhabited by a dog and a lizard. The dog is a big dog, something shaggy and nordic, like a Husky or Lapphund – a sled dog, built for the snow. The lizard is small, a little gecko best adapt-ed to living in a muggy rainforest somewhere. Neither have ever lived anywhere else, nor met any other creature; for the purposes of this exercise, this small house is the entirety of their universe.The dog, much as you might ex-pect, turns on the air conditioning. Really cranks it up, all the time – this dog was bred for hunting moose on the tundra, even the winter here in Ohio is a little warm for his taste. If he can get the house to fifty (that’s ten C, for all you weirdo metric users out there), he’s almost happy.The gecko can’t do much to control the temperature – she’s got tiny little fingers, she can’t really work the thermostat or turn the dials on the A/C. Sometimes, when there’s an incandescent light nearby, she can curl up near it and pick up some heat that way, but for the most part, most of the time, she just has to live with what the dog chooses. This is, of course, much too cold for her – she’s a gecko. Not only does she have no fur, she’s cold-blooded! The tempera-ture makes her sluggish and sick, and it permeates her entire uni-verse. Maybe here and there she can find small spaces of warmth,

but if she ever wants to actually do anything, to eat or watch TV or talk to the dog, she has to move through the cold house.Now, remember, she’s never known anything else. This is just how the world is – cold and painful and unhealthy for her, even dangerous, and she copes as she knows how. But maybe some small part of her thinks, “hey, it shouldn’t be like this,” some tiny growing seed of rebellion that says who she is right next to a lamp is who she should be all the time. And she and the dog are partners, in a sense, right? They live in this house together, they affect each other, all they’ve got is each other. So one day, she sees the dog messing with the A/C again, and she says, “hey. Dog. Listen, it makes me really cold when you do that.”The dog kind of looks at her, and shrugs, and keeps turning the dial.This is not because the dog is a jerk.This is because the dog has no fucking clue what the lizard even just said.Consider: he’s a nordic dog in a temperate climate. The word “cold” is completely meaningless to him. He’s never been cold in his entire life. He lives in an environment that is perfectly suited to him, completely aligned with his comfort level, a world he grew up with the tools to survive and control, built right in to the way he was born.So the lizard tries to explain it to him. She says, “well, hey, how would you like it if I turned the temperature down on you?”The dog goes, “uh… sounds good to me.”What she really means, of course, is “how would you like it if I made you cold.” But she can’t make him cold. She doesn’t have the tools, or the power, their shared world is not built in a way that allows it – she simply is not physically capable of

doing the same harm to him that he’s doing to her. She could make him feel pain, probably, I’m sure she could stab him with a tooth-pick or put something nasty in his food or something, but this specific form of pain, he will never, ever understand – it’s not something that can be inflicted on him, given the nature of the world they live in and the way it’s slanted in his fa-vor in this instance. So he doesn’t get what she’s saying to him, and keeps hurting her.Most privilege is like this.A straight cisgendered male Amer-ican, because of who he is and the culture he lives in, does not and cannot feel the stress, creepiness, and outright threat behind a catcall the way a woman can. His upbring-ing has given him fur and paws big enough to turn the dials and plopped him down in temperate Ohio. When she says “you don’t have to put up with being leered at,” what she means is, “you don’t ever have to be wary of sexual interest.” That’s male privilege. Not so much that something doesn’t happen to men, but that it will never carry the same weight, even if it does.So what does this mean? And what are we asking you to do, when we say “check your privilege” or “your privilege is showing”?Well, quite simply, we want you to understand when you have fur.

And, by ex-tension, when that means you should listen. See, the dog’s not an asshole just for turning down the tem-perature. As far as he knows, that’s fine, right? He genu-

inely cannot feel the pain it causes, he doesn’t even know about it. No one thinks he’s a bad person for totally accidentally doing harm.Here’s where he becomes an asshole: the minute the gecko says, “look, you’re hurting me,”

and he says, “what? No, I’m not. This ‘cold’ stuff doesn’t even exist, I should know, I’ve never felt it. You’re imagining it. It’s not there. It’s fine because of fur, because of paws, because look, you can curl up around this lamp, because sometimes my water dish is too tepid and I just shut up and cope, obviously temperature isn’t this big deal you make it, and you’ve never had to deal with mange anyway, my life is just as hard.”And then the dog just ignores it. Because he can. That’s the privilege that comes with having fur, with being a dog in Ohio. He doesn’t have to think about it. He doesn’t have to live daily with the cold. He hasno idea what he’s talking about, and he will never, ever be forced to learn. He can keep making the lizard miserable until the day they both die, and he will never suffer for it beyond the mild annoyance of her complaining. And she, meanwhile, gets to try not to freeze to death.So, quite simply: don’t be that dog. If you’re straight and a queer person says “do not title your book ‘Beautiful Cocksucker,’ that’s stupid and offensive,” listen and believe him. If you’re white and a black person says “really, now, we’re all getting a little tired of that What These People Need Is A Honky trope, please write a better movie,” listen and believe her. If you’re male and a woman says “this ma-quette is a perfect example of why women don’t read comics,” listen and believe her. Maybe you don’t see anything wrong with it, maybe you think it’s oh-so-perfect to your artistic vision, maybe it seems like an oversensitive big deal over nothing to you. WELL OF COURSE IT DOES, YOU HAVE FUR. Never-theless, just because you person-ally can’t feel that hurt, doesn’t mean it’s not real. All it means is you have privilege.That’s not a bad thing. You can’t help being born with fur. Every single one of us has some kind of privilege over some-body. What matters is whether we’re aware of it.