photography politics

Who’s afraid of home? Photojournalism’s foreign fixation

The US presidential election began this week. Although polling day is still 18 months away, yesterdays Republican candidates’ debate in New Hampshire marks the start of the race.

As ever, the economy, jobs, healthcare and education will be key issues, with more people worried about these than war. In Britain, along with immigration and multiculturalism, the picture is pretty much the same, which is not surprising given we face an ideological government savaging public services.

Which got me wondering – what does photojournalism contribute to these debates? Beyond the daily campaign picture and stock political portrait, what stories are we seeing from photojournalists and documentary photographers that engage these issues? My sense is not much, and certainly not enough.

Photojournalism has long been fixated on the foreign. Check out the web sites of major agencies like Magnum, VII, Panos and Noor and you will see that in the featured stories domestic concerns are a minority interest (though LUCEO is perhaps an exception to this). I’ve done a back-of-the-envelope calculation of the ‘Features and essays’ in Mikko Takkunen’s excellent Photojournalism Links, and over the last month foreign stories outnumber domestic ones by a ratio of 3:1. All this confirms Stephen Mayes 2009 statement that photojournalism is now more romantic – meaning “heroic, adventurous, remote, mysterious or idealized” – than functional, and supports Asim Rafiqui’s claim that we face a “strange silence of the conscience” whereby the “hollowing out” of our societies is under-recorded.

Of course, all generalizations are dangerous (even this one). What counts as ‘home’ is linked in part to personal identity, so, given the preponderance of American and European photographers in the industry, I’m thinking of the minority world as ‘home’ and the majority world as ‘foreign’.

It is also the case that in a globalized and interdependent world, the distinction between ‘foreign’ and ‘domestic’ is far from clear-cut. Many stories cut across borders. Even war is not something that occurs only beyond the water’s edge. When Nina Berman, Edmund Clark and Ashley Gilbertson show the impact of conflict on the home front, it is not easy to locate their work on one side or other of the international boundary.

There are also a number photographers working in domestic space on social issues. Recent examples from the UK include Liz Hingley’s ‘Under Gods’, Liz Lock and Mishka Henner’s Borderland and Hinterland, George Georgiou’s Curry and Chips, my multimedia partner Peter Fryer’s work in South Shields, and of course Amber/Side’s long history of documenting the north east of England. On (although still a minority) the recent US-based projects of Matt Eich, Aaron Huey and Justin Maxton would count as domestic. The ongoing projects of Anthony Suau and Matt Black (highlighted by Asim Rafiqui) are impressive, and no doubt readers can (and should) add others.

And yet so much more is needed. It’s best illustrated by one of my all-time favourite multimedia pieces, Evan Vucci’s 2009 story “Faces of the Uninsured.” It tells the story of working Americans who cannot afford health care and must travel long distances to access the services of Remote Area Medical, an NGO that once focused on aid to “the Third World” but now concentrates on the US (17 of their 21 missions in 2011 are in America). Vucci’s story is an under-stated but shocking presentation of a domestic issue.

Given that the Republicans scorn Obama’s modest health care reforms as ‘socialism’ there is ample reason for a humanist tradition of photography to engage this issue alone. Initiatives like Facing Change: Documenting America and American show promising signs of movement on other related concerns. I’m not suggesting people walk away from the important international stories. But surely there are more than enough visual storytellers for many lenses to be turned towards home.

Photo credit: A discarded kitchen appliances sits in one of many fields surrounding the Hattersley Estate. Copyright Liz Lock & Mishka Henner, 2006.


Obama @ 50 days

Early indications about the emerging Obama doctrine in foreign policy are positive. As Jonathan Freedland wrote in the Guardian, repudiation of the Bush legacy, some plain talking and a few imaginative diplomatic initiatives are all good. 

But last week there was a disturbing turn, in the withdrawal of Charles Freeman’s appointment to the National Intelligence Council. Freeman was forced out because — in the words of NY Democrat Senator Charles Schumer — “his statements against Israel were way over the top.” Apparently Freeman declared that until “Israeli violence against Palestinians” is halted, “it is utterly unrealistic to expect that Palestinians will stand down from violent resistance”. Against Israel? Way over the top?

When it comes to Israeli policy, plain speaking is not acceptable in Washington. Whether Obama dumped Freeman or simply failed to fight on this behalf, this —  as the background to this story makes clear — is a bad sign for future American policy on the occupation of Palestinian territory and the strangulation of Palestinian life, not to mention the long term guarantee of Israeli security.


Obama, week 1

It was all about the expectations. Would Obama be true to the progressive ethos of his campaign, or would entering office dull the prospects for change? At the end of week one – too early to offer any definitive conclusions, to be sure – things are looking unexpectedly good.

Obama was never going to be a progressive in the sense of even a centre-left, European social democrat. Being American president means embodying the narrative of exceptionalism, individualism and patriotism of that country. But when an inaugural address pays heed to the need for “the tempering qualities of humility and restraint” in American power, its possible something different is afoot.

And the first week quickly and decisively brought many good things with regard to America’s position in the world. The “rule of law” was installed as a motif for the new administration; liberty and security are no longer seen as a zero-sum game; the dubious military trials of terror suspects have been suspended; Guantanamo is to be closed in no more than a year; CIA prisons and other ‘black sites’ (see map from The Guardian, below) in Bush’s war on terror are being shut; torture is ruled out; rendition is no more; and the Geneva Conventions are to be respected.

The new administration’s foreign policy statement contains other promising moves: Iran is to be engaged without preconditions and nuclear weapons development is to be curtailed (though whether the details of this position match the headlines is open to question). And his support of US missile strikes inside Pakistan shows that not all Bush administration strategies are going out the window.

In short, a more ethical American leadership is emerging. Yet what is striking is how this return to a liberal internationalism is so heartily welcomed as progressive. This euphoria reveals how much the destructive radicalism of the eight dark years of the Bush administration has distorted our perspective.

black sites