Site Presented By
Saturday, Jul 11, 2009
Millions will watch Nicholas Berg's tragic murder online not for prurient reasons or to gain insight into evil. They will watch because of the overwhelming urge to be in the know.
May 13, 2004 | Earlier this week when, like millions of others, I logged on to the Internet and accessed a site with video of the young Pennsylvania businessman Nicholas Berg being beheaded, my hand hovered above my mouse momentarily. Do I double-click or don't I? Do I really want to see a man being beheaded or don't I? In the end, I decided that I didn't need to see a decapitation, that I could easily imagine what it would look like, and that images of Berg's death would not inform or deepen my understanding of Iraq or terrorism or the American mission or of brutality generally. I would just be another voyeur.
But millions, I am sure, did not share the same compunction or, if they did, double-clicked anyway to see what amounted to a snuff film. As far as do we or don't we, it wasn't lost on many of us that at the same time Nick Berg was being beheaded continuously on the Internet for anyone who cared to watch, members of Congress were looking over grisly photographs of abuse from Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq -- photographs that the Pentagon would not release publicly, on the basis that no good could come of doing so, and much harm could. No one but the congressmen and senators, the Pentagon decided, needed to see these images.
Whenever particularly gruesome photographs or videos are either made available or embargoed, a moral debate automatically rages over the effect on the American psyche. On the one side are those who argue that these images should not be viewed. At best they can only inure us to atrocity, coarsen our sensibilities, desensitize us. By framing the violence as television and distancing us from it, they make us more willing to tolerate the heinous. At worst they trivialize it and turn it into just another prurient entertainment, the Nick Berg Show.
On the other side are those who argue that viewing cruelty is admittedly awful but may be necessary because it compels us to face evil more forcefully than anything else possibly can, compels us to see how the world really operates and what is really at stake, not just in Iraq or in the war on terrorism or in any specific situation but in life itself. Just as Thomas Aquinas believed that one needed evil to understand good, so too may one need tragedy to understand the human condition. Otherwise one lives in a gloss. This was the argument deployed when the horrific images of the Holocaust were first being released 50 years ago. One needed to see them because one's imagination could not comprehend the enormity of the crime. One needed to see them to bear witness.
And so the issue has been framed once again with the Nick Berg tape and the Abu Ghraib photographs. We should see them. We shouldn't see them. But as this debate continues, there is another possibility -- the possibility that images like these neither inure us nor sensitize us and that this dichotomy may even be an antiquated way of thinking about them. There may be an entirely different and new sensibility at work that beckons one to see the horror without experiencing any moral or psychological aftertaste. That sensibility is the irresistible urge to feel knowing -- to see what other people in the prow of culture are seeing. You watch Nick Berg being beheaded or you go on the Internet to see the unpublished photos from Abu Ghraib because you know other people are doing so and you don't want to feel left out.
