(In)Dignity via (Mis)Representation: Politics, Power, and Documentary Film

• Date: 18 November 2019
• Pages: 103-130
• Published date: 18 November 2019
• DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/978-1-78973-821-620191013
• Author: Justin de Leon

Chapter 7

(In)Dignity via (Mis)Representation:

Politics, Power, and Documentary Film

Justin de Leon

Introduction

The existence of Third World women’s narratives in itself is not

evidence of decentering hegemonic histories and subjectivities. It

is the way in which we are read, understood, and located insti-

tutionally that is of paramount importance. After all, the point

is not just to record one’s history of struggle, or consciousness,

but how they are recorded; the way we read, receive, and dissemi-

nate such imaginative records is immensely signicant.Chandra

Mohanty (2003, pp. 77–78)

The title (In)dignity via (Mis)representation: Politics, Power, and Documen-

tary Film gets at core of the contribution of this chapter: how individuals and

groups are represented can either dignify or dehumanize.1 Documentary (or

non-ction) lm is one such site of representation where interactions between

“distant peoples” takes sensory/corporal form (Shohat, 2006). Documentary

lm, however, is not void of the political, there are choices constantly being

made and remade. These choices can both recreate and reinforce or challenge

these relationships of unequal power.2 Critical reexive practices act as an

important mechanism for ameliorating the pernicious effects of representa-

tional cinematographic choices.

1I am appreciative to the efforts of the editors Michael L. Penn and Hoda Mahmoudi,

as well as Kate Seaman in compiling this special volume. I also want to recognize

Margaret Stetz whose conversations with and continued mentorship have led to the

construction of this piece.

2This work avoids reifying any particular denition of conguration of dignity and

representation; rather, it calls for greater attention to reexive practice. The use of

parenthesis in the title is to motion to the dynamic and relational nature of both

concepts.

Interdisciplinary Perspectives on Human Dignity and Human Rights, 103–130

Copyright © 2020 by Emerald Publishing Limited

All rights of reproduction in any form reserved

doi:10.1108/978-1-78973-821-620191013

104 Justin de Leon

Film can be an expression and celebration of both human dignity or indig-

nity, presenting dignifying or dehumanizing acts. Suheil Bushrui suggests that the

opposite of human dignity is humiliation (see Bushrui’s contribution in this vol-

ume). Closely tied to humiliation are dehumanizing acts, or acts that strip agency

and reinforce difference and over-simplication.

Feminist scholar Jacqui Alexander (2005) reminds us the importance of aca-

demic theory, “Scholarship isn’t just about books. Scholarship is about how

to create the tools that will free us from oppression” (p. 178). Critical reexive

practice is one such tool that can disrupt oppression and is readily accessible to

academics and practitioners. This essay explores the relationship between (mis)

representation and (in)dignity through analyzing three documentary lms: Kony

2012 (2012), Half the Sky (2012), and Give to Live (2015).

Documentary lm is an important medium of analysis for many reasons, two

of which are its wide distribution and global reach as a result of technological

advances and increased accessibility and its ability to bring people into contact

with each other, thus informing conceptions of how others live, organize their

lives, and their cultural values. More profoundly, aside from introducing us to

others, lm also has the power to introduce ourselves to ourselves.3 That is, how

we encounter difference tells us equally about ourselves than those who we come

across. (Mis)representations are political acts imbued with enactments of power

(easily translated into violence) that can simultaneously strip and endow subjects

with agency and value.4 Documentary lms can reinforce global power inequali-

ties and oppressive relationships, while, conversely, act as sites of resistance and

celebrations of human experiences in its multiplicity of forms.5 They can encour-

age and animate thinking of new arrangements of justice and understanding.

They are a critical site for the operations and enactments of power. Documentary

lm can redene the bounds of possibility.

The following explores the relationship between (in)dignity and (mis)represen-

tation through the medium of documentary lm – as a political act – to suggest

that the practice of documentary lm can benet from (renewed) attention to

reexive practices. Reexivity is a deliberative, self-aware process – understood

as a “ sociology-of-knowing approach” – that provides a source of insight and

allows researchers to examine critically, reect upon, and analytically explore

the research and production process (Fonow & Cook, 1991). It calls for critical

reection upon how inquiry is conducted and has its roots in sociology, critical/

3This notion was introduced to me by the respected Iranian lmmaker Mohsen

Makhmalbaf during a 2016 lm training through the Institute for the Studies of

Global Prosperity.

4The study of power and representation has a long historical trajectory that includes

postcolonial scholarship such as Said (1978), Spivak (1988), and Escobar (1995) and

critical feminist scholarship such as Mohanty (1991), Rabinowitz (1994), Chowdhry

and Nair (2002), Shohat (2006), and Silvey (2010).

5Tuck (2009) presents the notion of “complex personhood” as a referendum on what

she refers to as “damage-based” research.