- One coordinate of surveillance between the modern and postmodern that sticks out to me is ethos, which measures coerciveness. In the discussion of moral character, I think about cancel culture and how, with social media, the 'postmodern' present looks to stamp out any person who shows signs of deviation. While this has had 'beneficial' results, there are still risks for accusers and the accused. It makes me believe that from the surface, postmodern ethos is less coercive, where people are not forced to believe any certain way, but that the way it controls is still prominent. With this understanding of how an individual would be perceived, we are inclined to behave and express our opinions in a certain way to receive approval from those who are surveilling us, an implicit form of control.
- "Who can, is, or ought to be, absolutely indifferent to the exterior of persons brought before him to be judged?" (17) An advantage that Lavater points out is how physiognomy is innate in all human beings. He argues that an individual will use a visual evaluation to make an unconscious assumption upon first meeting a person, regardless of how they have taught their consciousness to think. Relating to surveillance, we use our vision to create profiles of individuals, casting light and providing an explanation for our observation. But while these profiles can be useful to create identities of trust or safety, this also includes an opinion of difference. I particularly thought about disability and how visual observations of disability are often associated with deficiency and inability. Should we amend the 'advantages' of physiognomy as an evaluation of character?
- On Plate II, 2 images that stuck out to me were image 2 and image 5. They reminded me of TV show characters: 2 of LeFou from Beauty and the Beast, and 3 of Harry from Home Alone. While reading these descriptions, I am reminded of how archetypes are used in visual media to elicit assumptions from audience members. LeFou's character is created to be inferior to Gaston, while the addition to image 2 says "no man whatever will expect penetration, reasoning, or wisdom". Similarly, image 5 is described as being unable to derive a notion of wisdom from, while Harry was subject to repeat humiliations from a kid. While visuals use common audience understandings to create comprehensive storylines, this practice poses problems with accessibility and accuracy. This relates back to my thoughts from question 2; how physiognomy and conclusions made from visual observations are inevitable, so how do we combat (or should we combat) these 'biases' that arise when we watch visual media.