Skip navigation

In response to Lakshmi’s lecture and Beltrán’s writings, I find a particular trend worth investigating. In one of the videos that Lakshmi played for the class, a campaign advocating for immigration reform called upon Americans to “come out” with their open support for new legislation. The noteworthy premise of this advertisement, however, was that it made a plea for individuals to post their selfies publicly to show their support; to render themselves visible for the cause. This complicates some of the theories previously brought up in the classroom. In a postmodern digital age of traceability, where individuals can be known and participation in media is forcing exposure, it is peculiar that there still remains a contrast between a petition of names and a collection of photos.

It is implied that if these people take pictures of themselves and post them in support of the cause, it will have more meaning than their willing signature. Perhaps you could go as far as to say that lesser quantity of pictures would still have a greater impact than a higher quantity of names. Why is that? The role of the window and the navigation of public and private are at play here. At this point in society, interaction with media does not seem to allow privacy, due to the ever-present potential of being observed, tracked, and recorded. Yet, the perceived volition of disbanding one’s own privacy, to reveal themselves and come out is still considered to be a stoic, dramatic act. This signals to me that we are still operating off of a misguided gauge of freedom. Psychologically, the society feels they are actively effecting change by voluntarily making themselves visible and public, but to the government, they very well may have been this whole time. Therefore, will Americans’ actions really make a difference? Are their campaigns really making the shocking, overwhelming statement to Congress as they are hoping? I am weary that the answer is no, and no petition with or without pictures is going to change the government’s opinions, for it is information they already have access to.