Skip navigation

Shah writes:

“These digital memories, as Chun argues, necessarily leak and betray us, placing our physical bodies in conditions of vulnerability and precariousness. This incontrovertible moment of exposure is the result of how the camera and the digital network work in tandem to create nodes of exposure that defy and challenge individual rights and aspirations. This mode of exposure is active.”

While obviously anxiety inducing for Shah, among others, in what way does this understanding of the leaking of digital memories – especially in terms of pornographic memories – allow a redefinition of the notion of a body? A memory of a body that is not digital constructs the body elsewhere than in the body; it is a conceptual image of a body and thus an extension of the body called “body.” However, if new media and its conncetion to pornography allow that conception of the body to engage in this leakage, is there optimistic potential in a vulnerability or a precariousness? Is it possible fora body to leak and to be exposed, but not injured? Perhaps not politically, but interpersonally? Is not this vulnerability akin to an intimacy? Intimacy – so rooted in the body – is a concept entrenched in the one-to-one-personal-interaction of the pre-internet. How could a rethinking of intimacy, the body, and vulnerability in terms of the potential leakage that is present in the verbal sense of “exposure” be used to forge new understandings of “intimacy” in ways that could be productive rather than destructive? (In terms of affect: women feel “destroyed” at their identity showing up on revenge porn sights; they’re upset. Is it possible for this leakage to occur in something quite unlike upsetness? Something like pleasure in the body that is leaked?)