Exploring the Selfie 1st ed.

Edition Julia
Eckel
Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://ebookmass.com/product/exploring-the-selfie-1st-ed-edition-julia-eckel/
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...

Unschooling: Exploring Learning Beyond the Classroom

1st ed. Edition Gina Riley

https://ebookmass.com/product/unschooling-exploring-learning-
beyond-the-classroom-1st-ed-edition-gina-riley/

Human Trafficking in Conflict : Context, Causes and the

Military 1st ed. Edition Julia Muraszkiewicz

https://ebookmass.com/product/human-trafficking-in-conflict-
context-causes-and-the-military-1st-ed-edition-julia-
muraszkiewicz/

Exploring Mishnah's World(s): Social Scientific

Approaches 1st ed. Edition Simcha Fishbane

https://ebookmass.com/product/exploring-mishnahs-worlds-social-
scientific-approaches-1st-ed-edition-simcha-fishbane/

Romantic Relationships in a Time of ‘Cold Intimacies’

1st ed. 2020 Edition Julia Carter

https://ebookmass.com/product/romantic-relationships-in-a-time-
of-cold-intimacies-1st-ed-2020-edition-julia-carter/
African Politics and Ethics: Exploring New Dimensions
1st ed. Edition Munyaradzi Felix Murove

https://ebookmass.com/product/african-politics-and-ethics-
exploring-new-dimensions-1st-ed-edition-munyaradzi-felix-murove/

Immobility and Medicine: Exploring Stillness, Waiting

and the In-Between 1st ed. Edition Cecilia Vindrola-
Padros

https://ebookmass.com/product/immobility-and-medicine-exploring-
stillness-waiting-and-the-in-between-1st-ed-edition-cecilia-
vindrola-padros/

Exploring philosophy: an introductory anthology 6th ed

Edition Cahn

https://ebookmass.com/product/exploring-philosophy-an-
introductory-anthology-6th-ed-edition-cahn/

Powers: A History 1st Edition Julia Jorati (Editor)

https://ebookmass.com/product/powers-a-history-1st-edition-julia-
jorati-editor/

The Economics of Pandemics: Exploring Globally Shared

Experiences S. Niggol Seo

https://ebookmass.com/product/the-economics-of-pandemics-
exploring-globally-shared-experiences-s-niggol-seo/
Exploring the Selfie

Historical, Theoretical,
and Analytical Approaches
to Digital Self-Photography

Edited by
Julia Eckel, Jens Ruchatz, Sabine Wirth
Exploring the Selfie
Julia Eckel • Jens Ruchatz • Sabine Wirth
Editors

Exploring the Selfie

Historical, Theoretical, and
Analytical Approaches to Digital
Self-­Photography
Editors
Julia Eckel Jens Ruchatz
Philipps-University Marburg Philipps-University Marburg
Marburg, Germany Marburg, Germany
Ruhr-University Bochum
Bochum, Germany

Sabine Wirth
Philipps-University Marburg
Marburg, Germany

ISBN 978-3-319-57948-1    ISBN 978-3-319-57949-8 (eBook)

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-57949-8

Library of Congress Control Number: 2017960844

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s) 2018

This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether
the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of
illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and trans-
mission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or
dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication
does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant
protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book
are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or
the editors give a warranty, express or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any
errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional
claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Cover illustration: bortonia

Printed on acid-free paper

This Palgrave Macmillan imprint is published by the registered company Springer International
Publishing AG part of Springer Nature
The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland
 Acknowledgments

This book is the outcome of a conference titled #SEFLIE—Imag(in)ing

the Self in Digital Media, which took place at Philipps-University,
Marburg, Germany, in April 2015 and was made possible through fund-
ing from the Fritz Thyssen Stiftung, the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft
(DFG), and the Ursula-Kuhlmann-Fonds/Ursula Kuhlmann Fund. We
would like to thank all the participants of the conference for their inspir-
ing input, ideas, and thoughts that directly or indirectly found their way
into this book. Furthermore, we would like to thank Kevin Pauliks for his
help with manuscript preparation. Finally, special thanks go out to
Palgrave Macmillan, especially Martina O’Sullivan, Felicity Plester, and
Heloise Harding, for their kind support and inexhaustible patience with
our project, and to our three anonymous peer reviewers for their produc-
tive comments and encouraging feedback.

v
 Contents

1 The Selfie as Image (and) Practice: Approaching Digital

Self-Photography   1
Julia Eckel, Jens Ruchatz, and Sabine Wirth

Part I The Selfie in Media Theory and History   25

2 The Consecration of the Selfie: A Cultural History  27

André Gunthert

3 Selfie Reflexivity: Pictures of People Taking Photographs  49

Jens Ruchatz

4 Locating the Selfie within Photography’s History—and

Beyond  83
Kris Belden-Adams

5 The Selfie as Feedback: Video, Narcissism, and the Closed-

Circuit Video Installation  95
Angela Krewani
vii
viii Contents

Part II The Displayed Self: The Selfie as Aesthetic Object

and Networked Image 111

6 The Selfie and the Face 113

Hagi Kenaan

7 Selfies and Authorship: On the Displayed Authorship

and the Author Function of the Selfie 131
Julia Eckel

8 Competitive Photography and the Presentation of

the Self 167
Alise Tifentale and Lev Manovich

9 Of Duck Faces and Cat Beards: Why Do Selfies Need

Genres? 189
Bernd Leiendecker

Part III The Self on Display: Technology and Dispositif

of the Selfie 211

10 Interfacing the Self: Smartphone Snaps

and the Temporality of the Selfie 213
Sabine Wirth

11 The Video Selfie as Act and Artifact of Recording 239

Florian Krautkrämer and Matthias Thiele

12 Be a Hero: Self-Shoots at the Edge of the Abyss 261

Winfried Gerling
 Contents
   ix

13 Strike a Pose: Robot Selfies 285

Lisa Gotto

Part IV Displaying the Self: Social, Political, and Creative

Interventions 303

14 Selfies and Purikura as Affective, Aesthetic Labor 305

Mette Sandbye

15 The Kid Selfie as Self-Inscription: Reinventing

an Emerging Media Practice 327
Alexandra Schneider and Wanda Strauven

16 “Machos” and “Top Girls”: Photographic Self-Images

of Berlin Hauptschüler 351
Stefan Wellgraf

Index 379
 Notes on Contributors

Kris Belden-Adams is an Assistant Professor of Art History at the

University of Mississippi (USA) and specializes in the history and theory
of photography. Her work has been published in the journals Lexia:
Journal of Semiotics (2017), Southern Studies: An Interdisciplinary Journal
of the South (2017), Photographies (2015), and Afterimage (2012). Essays
and book chapters by Belden-Adams also have been published by
Bloomsbury Academic Press (2017), Peter Lang Publishing (2017), and
the Metropolitan Museum of Art (2012).
Julia Eckel is Research and Teaching Associate at the Institute of Media
Studies at Philipps-University Marburg, and scientific coordinator of the
DFG research training group Das Dokumentarische (“Documentary prac-
tices”) at Ruhr-­University Bochum. Her research interests include anthro-
pomorphic motifs in audiovisual media, technologies of the self,
animation, and the temporality of film. Recent publications include:
Zeitenwende(n) des Films (2013); Im Wandel … Metamorphosen der
Animation (ed. with E. Feyersinger, M. Uhrig; 2017); and (Dis)Orienting
Media and Narrative Mazes (ed. with B. Leiendecker, D. Olek,
C. Piepiorka; 2013).

xi
xii Notes on Contributors

Winfried Gerling is Professor for Concepts and Aesthetics of New

Media in European Media Studies at the University of Applied Sciences
Potsdam. His research focuses on the theory and practice of photography,
digitality, and media environments. Recent publications include: “Moved
Images—Velocity, Immediacy and Spatiality of Photographic
Communication” in M. Elo, M. Salo, and M. Goodwin, eds., Photographic
Powers (2015); “knipsen” in H. Christians, M. Bickenbach, and
N. Wegmann eds., Historisches Wörterbuch des Mediengebrauchs (2014);
and Was der Fall ist (with F. Goppelsröder; 2017).
Lisa Gotto is Professor at Internationale Filmschule Köln and at Cologne
Game Lab, TH Köln/University of Applied Sciences. Her research inter-
ests include media history and media theory, visual aesthetics and digital
media culture. Recent publications include: “Fantastic Views. Superheroes,
Visual Perception and Digital Perspective” in J. Gilmore and M. Storck,
eds., Superhero Synergies. Comic Book Characters Go Digital (2014); and
New Game Plus. Perspektiven der Game Studies. Genres—Künste—Diskurse
(ed. with B. Beil and G. S. Freyermuth; 2015).
André Gunthert is Chair of Visual Studies at the Ecole des Hautes
Études en Sciences Sociales, Paris, and a Researcher in cultural history
and visual studies. In 1996 he founded the scientific journal Études pho-
tographiques. He is the author of numerous books and articles on the
history of image practices. Publications include: L’Image Partagée. La pho-
tographie numérique (2015); L’instant rêvé. Albert Londe (1993); and L’Art
de la photographie (ed. with M. Poivert; 2007).
Hagi Kenaan is a Professor of Philosophy at Tel Aviv University, special-
izing in phenomenology, aesthetics, and the philosophy of art. He is the
author of The Ethics of Visuality: Levinas and the Contemporary Gaze
(2013) and The Present Personal: Philosophy and the Hidden Face of
Language (2005) and is currently completing a book on the philosophy
of photography.
Florian Krautkrämer is Visiting Professor at the Johannes Gutenberg
University, Mainz, and wrote his dissertation on the topic of writing in
film (Schrift im Film, 2013) at Braunschweig University of Fine Arts. His
research interests include mobile and portable media, media industries,
and amateur media. Recent publications include “GoPro-Vision und
 Notes on Contributors
   xiii

involvierter Blick: Neue Bilder der Kriegsberichterstattung” in

M.-H. Adam, S. Gellai, and J. Knifka, eds., Technisierte Lebenswelt (2016)
and Birgit Hein: Film as Idea (ed. with N. Heidenreich and H. Klippel;
2016).
Angela Krewani is Professor of Media Studies at Philipps-University
Marburg. Her research interests include digital media, media art, social
and mobile media, the hybridization of media systems, and new forms of
media narration. Recent publications include: Medienkunst. Ästhetik—
Theorie—Praxis (2016); Hybride Formen. New British Cinema—Television
Drama—Hypermedia (2001); and Artefacts/Artefictions: Transformational
Processes in Contemporary Literatures, Media, Arts and Architectures (ed.,
2000).
Bernd Leiendecker holds a PhD in media studies from Ruhr-University
Bochum. His research interests include genre theory, social media, and
film narratology. Recent publications include: “Taking Split Personalities
to the Next Level” in S. Schlickers and V. Toro, eds., Perturbatory
Narration in Film (2017); Geschichte des unzuverlässigen Erzählens im
Film (2015); and (Dis)Orienting Media and Narrative Mazes (ed. with
J. Eckel, D. Olek, C. Piepiorka; 2013).
Lev Manovich is Professor of Computer Science at the Graduate Center,
City University of New York, and Director of Cultural Analytics Lab. His
research interests include cultural analytics (analysis of big cultural data
and global trends), computational social science, digital humanities, and
software studies. He is the author of Software Takes Command (2013);
Black Box—White Cube (2005); The Language of New Media (2001); and
other books and of more than 130 articles published in 35 countries.
Jens Ruchatz is Professor of Media Studies at Philipps-University
Marburg. His research covers a wide range of media (mainly photogra-
phy, film, television, and digital media) and their effects on collective
memory, time regimes, and processes of individualization. He currently
leads the project “Fragment Constellations: Periodised and Serialised
Photography (1845–1910)” in the context of the research unit
Journalliteratur. Recent book publications include Die Individualität der
Celebrity. Eine Mediengeschichte des Interviews (2014) and Medienreflexion
im Film. Ein Handbuch (ed. with K. Kirchmann, 2014).
xiv Notes on Contributors

Mette Sandbye is Professor of Photography Studies and Head of the

Department of Arts and Cultural Studies at the University of Copenhagen.
She has written extensively on photography and contemporary art and
currently researches amateur and family photography since the 1960s.
Recent publications include: “Looking at the Family Photo Album. A
Resumed Theoretical Discussion of Why and How,” Journal of Aesthetics
& Culture (2014); “The Family Photo Album as Transformed Social
Space in the Age of ‘Web 2.0,’” in U. Ekman, ed., Throughout. Art and
Culture Emerging with Ubiquitous Computing (2013); and Digital Snaps.
The New Face of Photography (ed. with J. Larsen; 2014).
Alexandra Schneider is Professor of Film and Media Studies at the
Johannes Gutenberg University, Mainz. Her field of expertise includes
amateur film and media practices, media archaeology, digital storytelling,
children and media, and world cinema. She is the author of “Die Stars
sind wir”: Heimkino als filmische Praxis in der Schweiz der Dreissigerjahre
(2004). Her work has been published in NECSUS, Projections, Film
History, Bianco e Nero, and Visual Anthropology. Together with Wanda
Strauven, she is currently preparing a book on children’s playful interac-
tion with media.
Wanda Strauven is Privatdozentin of Media Studies at the Goethe
University, Frankfurt, and Affiliate Associate Professor of Film Studies at
the University of Amsterdam. Her research interests include early and
avant-garde cinema, media archaeology, and children and media. She is
the author of Marinetti e il cinema: tra attrazione e sperimentazione (2006)
and has edited several volumes, including The Cinema of Attractions
Reloaded (2006). Together with Alexandra Schneider, she is currently pre-
paring a book on children’s playful interaction with media.
Matthias Thiele is a Postdoctoral Research Assistant at Technical
University Dortmund. His research interests include the theory and his-
tory of portable media, genealogy of the scene of recording, (inter-)dis-
cours theory, television and film studies, normalism and media culture,
racism and media representation. Recent publications include “‘Im
Angesicht der Dinge’: Ambulatorischer Aufzeichnungspraktiken und
Schreibtechniken des Notierens bei Alexander von Humboldt mit
 Notes on Contributors
   xv

Seitenblick auf Georg Forster, Thomas Jefferson und Adelbert von

Chamisso” in O. Ette and J. Drews, eds., Horizonte der Humboldt-
Forschung (2016) and Portable Media (ed. with M. Stingelin; 2010).
Alise Tifentale is a PhD candidate in Art History at the Graduate
Center, City University of New York. Her research focuses on the history
of international photographers’ organizations. Recent publications
include “Rules of the Photographers’ Universe” in Photoresearcher (2017);
“The Networked Camera at Work: Why Every Self-Portrait Is Not a
Selfie, but Every Selfie Is a Photograph” in Riga Photography Biennial
(2016); “Art of the Masses: From Kodak Brownie to Instagram” in
Networking Knowledge (2015); and Photography as Art in Latvia, 1960–
1969 (2011).
Stefan Wellgraf works as an Academic Assistant at the European
University Viadrina in Frankfurt (Oder). His research deals mainly with
exclusion, migration, and popular culture. His publications include:
Hauptschüler. Zur gesellschaftlichen Produktion von Verachtung (2012) and
Migration und Medien. Wie Fernsehen, Radio und Print auf die Anderen
blicken (2008).
Sabine Wirth is a Research and Teaching Associate at the Institute of
Media Studies at Philipps-University Marburg, and scientific coordinator
of the DFG research unit Journalliteratur. Her research interests include
the history and theory of personal computing with a special focus on user
interfaces, social media, (digital) image theory, and the history of writing.
Recent publications include “Between Interactivity, Control, and
‘Everydayness’—Towards a Theory of User Interfaces” in F. Hadler and
J. Haupts, eds., Interface Critique (2016).
 List of Figures

Fig. 1.1 Collection of animal selfies. Photographs (top left to down

right) by Flickr users Robin Zebrowski (2007, CC BY 2.0), Eric
Sonstroem (2015, CC BY 2.0), Luis Vidal (2013, CC BY 2.0),
Cat Wendt (2014, CC BY 2.0), Frontierofficial (2015, CC BY
2.0), Filip Chudoba Performance. (2016, CC BY 2.0); and by
Wikimedia Commons (2014 and 2015, both CC0) 3
Fig. 2.1 Screenshot from Thelma & Louise (Ridley Scott, USA 1991,
MGM)28
Fig. 2.2 Retinette’s guide (Kodak, c. 1954) 30
Fig. 2.3 Different types of selfies: (a) mirror selfie, (b) reversed selfie,
(c) front camera iPad, (d) feet selfie, and (e) front camera
iPhone 4. Photos by André Gunthert 31
Fig. 2.4 “Hi Mom”—selfie by Flickr co-founders Stewart Butterfield
and Caterina Fake. Available from: Flickr.com, October 3, 2005
(CC BY 2.0). https://www.flickr.com/photos/12037949663@
N01/48836563/ (accessed March 29, 2017) 33
Fig. 2.5 “The Me Me Me Generation.” Front page of Time, May 20,
201336
Fig. 2.6 Advertisement campaign by Cape Times that adds a smart-
phone to famous photographs (2013). Available from: http://
theinspirationroom.com/daily/2013/cape-times-selfies/
(accessed March 20, 2017) 40

xvii
xviii List of Figures

Fig. 2.7 Oscar selfie. Available from: Twitter.com (@TheEllenShow),

March 2, 2014. https://twitter.com/theellenshow/status/4403
22224407314432?lang=de (accessed March 29, 2017) 41
Fig. 2.8 Screenshot of the “Museum of Selfies.” Available from:
Tumblr.com (Museum Of Selfies), 2014. http://museumof-
selfies.tumblr.com/archive (accessed March 29, 2017) 42
Fig. 3.1 Screenshot of a Google search with search term “selfie” (April
3, 2016) 50
Fig. 3.2 Megan Koester’s articles on “Photos of People Taking Selfies,”
as published on Vice (2014). Available from: Koester, Megan:
“Photos of People Taking Selfies at the 9/11 Memorial,” vice.
com, July 17, 2014. http://www.vice.com/read/photos-of-
people-taking-selfies-at-the-911-memorial-717; Koester,
Megan: “Photos of People Taking Selfies at an Art Museum,”
vice.com, August 15, 2014. http://www.vice.com/read/the-
art-of-the-selfie-814 (both accessed September 6, 2016) 52
Fig. 3.3 Selfie of Francesco Totti (a) and selfie scene shot by Luciano
Rossi (b), as uploaded on AS Roma’s Facebook account (2015,
2016). (a) Available from: Facebook.com (@officialasroma),
January 11, 2015. https://www.facebook.com/officialasroma/
photos/a.219092088151613.52460.209630315764457/
1071810142879799. (b) Available from: Facebook.com
(@officialasroma), June 10, 2016. https://www.facebook.com/
officialasroma/photos/a.553555668038585.1073741974.
209630315764457/796767913717358 (both accessed
September 6, 2016) 69
Fig. 3.4 “Italia is Love”—Dolce & Gabbana Summer 2016 Advertising
Campaign (Dolce & Gabbana, 2016). Available from http://
www.thefashionisto.com/dolce-gabbana-2016-spring-summer-
mens-campaign/dolce-gabbana-2016-spring-summer-mens-
campaign-003 (accessed September 2, 2016) 71
Fig. 4.1 Photographic self-portraits: (a) Robert Cornelius: Photo Self-
Portrait (1839). Public Domain (Library of Congress, USA).
Available from: http://www.loc.gov/pictures/item/2004664436/.
(b) Anastasia Nikolaevna: Self-Portrait (Photograph) (c. 1913/
October 1914). Public Domain (Wikimedia Commons).
Available from: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:
Grand_Duchess_Anastasia_Nikolaevna_self_photographic_
portrait.jpg (both accessed March 20, 2017) 86
 List of Figures
   xix

Fig. 6.1 Renana at the hairdresser. Printed with permission of the

­photographer 116
Fig. 6.2 Ilse Bing: Self-Portrait with Leica (1931, National Gallery of
Art, Washington DC) 124
Fig. 6.3 Yonatan and Dana, getting married (a) and Ilil at home
(b). Printed with permission of the photographers and photo-
graphed127
Fig. 7.1 Macaca nigra self-portrait (2011). Public Domain (Wikimedia
Commons). Available from https://commons.wikimedia.org/
wiki/File:Macaca_nigra_self-portrait.jpg (accessed March 20,
2017)134
Fig. 7.2 “Masterpiece”—Print-advertisement for the Samsung NX
mini (Samsung 2014). Available from: http://johannesdoerig.
com/Samsung-Masterpiece (accessed September 16, 2016) 136
Fig. 7.3 Collection of selfies. (a), (c), (e), (f ), (g), (h), (i), (k) Public
Domain (CC0). Available from: http://Pixabay.com;
(b) Available from Flickr.com (Caterina & Mike), 2015 (CC0
Mark 1.0); (d) Available from: Flickr.com (Image Catalog),
2014 (CC0 1.0 Universal); (j) Available from: Flickr.com
(Leann Williams), 2015 (Public Domain Mark 1.0);
(l) Available from Flickr.com (Mark Miner), 2015 (Public
Domain Mark 1.0) 141
Fig. 9.1 German chancellor Angela Merkel and the German national
team after Germany’s win against Portugal at the Football
World Cup 2014. Available from: Twitter.com (@RegSprecher),
June 16, 2014. https://twitter.com/RegSprecher/status/
478612717428019201 (accessed September 15, 2016) 191
Fig. 9.2 Two Belfies. (a) Available from: Instagram.com (iamkb,
Kelly Brook), “Mind the Gap #Belfie,” April 21, 2014.
https://instagram.com/p/nEFkBZKZvL). (b) Available from:
Instagram.com (charleslawley, Charles Lawley), “A #belfast
#selfie, or a #belfie if you will,” August 25, 2014. https://
www.instagram.com/p/sH-9cdQCG_. Reproduced with
permission of the photographer 195
Fig. 10.1 (a, b): Selfie and screenshot of the selfie act on Huawei P8 Lite
(Android). Reproduced with permission of Carolin (2016).
(c, d): Selfie and screenshot of the selfie act on HTC One
Mini 2 (Android). Reproduced with permission of Isabelle
(2016)216
xx List of Figures

Fig. 10.2 Selfie folder on iPhone 6. Screenshot by Sabine Wirth (2016) 223
Fig. 10.3 Advertising campaign for the Sony Xperia™ C4 (Sony 2016).
Screenshot by Sabine Wirth. Available from: http://www.
sonymobile.com/global-en/products/phones/xperia-c4/
(accessedSeptember 15, 2016) 224
Fig. 10.4 Screenshots taken from Christoph Rehage’s video The
Longest Way 1.0—walk through China and grow a beard!—
a photo every day timelapse. Available from: YouTube.com
(Christoph Rehage), March 20, 2009. https://www.
youtube/5ky6vgQfU24 (accessed September 15, 2016) 231
Fig. 11.1 Screenshot taken from dahoam Is Dahoam. Video Selfie.
Holger M. Wilhelm. Available from: BR Fernsehen/BR
Mediathek, March 6, 2015. http://www.br.de/mediathek/video/
sendungen/dahoam-is-dahoam/selfie-portraet-holger-wil-
helm-gregor-brunner-100.html (accessed August 27, 2015) 243
Fig. 11.2 Screenshots taken from (a) A World of Conflict (Jeffrey
Porter, USA 2007) and (b, c) Episode III: Enjoy Poverty
(Renzo Martens, NLD 2008) 245
Fig. 11.3 (a, b) Screenshots taken from Adolf Winkelmann, Kassel
9.12.67 11.54h (Adolf Winkelmann, DEU 1967) and Blair
Witch Project (Daniel Myrick and Eduardo Sánchez, USA
1999)249
Fig. 11.4 Images from the GoPro-marketing campaign introducing the
new HERO session. (a) Screenshot from the video GoPro HERO
Session: GoPro, Simplified. Available from: YouTube.com
(GoPro), July 6, 2015. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=
PjGkVCAo8Fw. (b) GoPro marketing image. Available from:
https://www.morele.net/gopro-mocowanie-na-noge-lub-reke-
dla-gopro-ahwbm-001-768563 (both accessed March 20, 2017) 255
Fig. 12.1 Screenshot taken from Brandon Mikesell’s video GoPro:
Majestic Wingsuit Flight in Switzerland. Available from:
YouTube.com (GoPro), February 16, 2015. https://www.youtube.
com/watch?v=IM1vss7FXs8 (accessed September 15, 2016) 262
Fig. 12.2 Willi Ruge: “Ich fotografierte dabei ...” (1931). Available
From: Burda, Franz, ed. 1953. 50 Jahre Motorflug, 200–201.
Offenburg: Burda Druck und Verlag 263
Fig. 12.3 US Patent 4530580 A: “Telescopic extender for supporting
compact camera” (1983, 4). Available from: https://docs.
google.com/viewer?url=patentimages.storage.googleapis.
com/pdfs/US4530580.pdf (accessed October 15, 2016) 270
 List of Figures
   xxi

Fig. 13.1 Mirror reflection of Gigapan (Google 2014). Available from:

Tumblr.com (the-camera-in-the-mirror), n.d. http://the-camera-
in-the-mirror.tumblr.com (accessed September 16, 2016) 289
Fig. 13.2 Selfies of curiosity sent to earth and shared on (a) Facebook and
(b) Twitter. (a) Available from: Facebook.com (@MarsCuriosity),
March 24, 2015. https://www.facebook.com/MarsCuriosity/
photos/a.133197436730240.23875.110938085622842/7921
79500832027/?type=3&theater. (b) Available from: Twitter.
com (@MarsCuriosity), October 13, 2015. https://twitter.com/
marscuriosity/status/653998124642406400 (both accessed
March 29, 2017) 292
Fig. 13.3 Hitchhiking Robot Hitchbot (Twitter profile image). Available
from: Twitter.com (@hitchBOT), n.d. https://twitter.com/
hitchBOT (accessed September 16, 2016) 296
Fig. 13.4 (a, b) Gigapan with and without its coat (Google 2014). Available
from: Tumblr.com (the-camera-in-the-mirror), n.d. http://the-
camera-in-the-mirror.tumblr.com (accessed September 16,
2016)298
Fig. 14.1 (a) A sample of purikura sticker sheets, scrapbook, and an
image box. Photo by Mette Sandbye (Tokyo, 2010). (b) Single
purikura image of Sayaka and friend. Reproduced with per-
mission of Sayaka. (c) Purikura photo of the author, which
demonstrates the machine’s predetermination of her face as a
“Manga face.” Photo by Mette Sandbye (Tokyo, 2010). (d)
Page from Sayaka’s purikura scrapbook, where Fig. b figures in
the middle. Reproduced with permission of Sayaka. (e) Page
from Asuka’s purikura scrapbook. Reproduced with permis-
sion of Asuka 312
Fig. 14.2 “Cutie” high school girl costume found in a department store
in Tokyo. Photo by Mette Sandbye (Tokyo, 2010) 320
Fig. 15.1 (a, b) Infant foot selfies 329
Fig. 15.2 (a–e) Screenshots from selfie videos made by children 339
Fig. 15.3 (a, b) Aural and graphic self-inscriptions 345
Fig. 16.1 Collection of selfies of “Hauptschülerinnen” (Berlin 2013).
Collected and arranged by Stefan Wellgraf 354
Fig. 16.2 Collection of selfies of “Hauptschüler” (Berlin 2013).
Collected and arranged by Stefan Wellgraf 355
 1
The Selfie as Image (and) Practice:
Approaching Digital Self-Photography
Julia Eckel, Jens Ruchatz, and Sabine Wirth

Selfies are ubiquitous in online culture: Every frequent user of photo-­

sharing platforms, social network sites, or smartphone apps such as
Facebook, Twitter, Flickr, Photobucket, Instagram, Snapfish, WhatsApp,
or Snapchat is familiar with these particular photographic images and most
likely has already produced a selfie (or many selfies) herself/himself. Since
the term “selfie” was chosen Word of the Year by the Oxford Dictionaries in
2013, it has become evident that taking and sharing selfies is not just some
temporary hype of web culture. Selfie pictures are apparently here to stay
and have taken their place among established photographic practices. The
prevalence of self-images among the pictures taken with mobile phone
cameras and subsequently uploaded on social media platforms had been
accounted for before the popularization of the term “selfie”, at least occa-

J. Eckel (*)
Philipps-University Marburg, Marburg, Germany
Ruhr-University Bochum, Bochum, Germany
J. Ruchatz • S. Wirth
Philipps-University Marburg, Marburg, Germany

© The Author(s) 2018 1

J. Eckel et al. (eds.), Exploring the Selfie,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-57949-8_1
2 J. Eckel et al.

sionally (Lasén 2005, 66; Walker 2005; Prøitz 2007; Lasén and Gómez-
Cruz 2009; Schwarz 2010; Rocamora 2011).1 In this context those pictures
were generally referred to as “self-portraits,” even though the term “selfie”
had already been coined. The first documented use of the word goes back
to 2002 (Oxford Dictionaries 2013; Zimmer 2013). The rapid implementa-
tion of the new term took place in media critical discourse,2 taking off in
2012 and culminating in it becoming 2013’s Word of the Year. This dis-
coursive event is not just an arbitrary exchange of one word for another
(selfie instead of self-portrait) but indicates the public awareness of an
image practice that had long gone mostly unnoticed. In addition, it seems
to indicate that selfie images taken with mobile phones differ so much from
traditional self-portraits as to merit a proper name. It can be argued that
with the success of the new nomenclature, the picture practice has turned
from an emerging genre (Lüders et al. 2010) into a full-fledged genre that
is recognized as particular to online culture. The general adoption of the
term “selfie” has been instrumental in the popularization of digital self-
images—as a photographic practice taken up by a majority of mobile phone
users and as a topic of discourses about photography and online media.

In Search for a Selfie Definition

Despite the prevalence of the word and the ubiquitous presence of selfie
pictures, it is not so easy to pinpoint what a selfie actually is and what the
practice of taking and sharing selfies tells us about today’s media use and
media culture. Therefore, it may be helpful to start by focusing on a phe-
nomenon that calls attention to some of the specifics of the selfie by chal-
lenging them at the same time: animal selfies. At the peak of the selfie
hype around 2012,3 so-called cat selfies and dog selfies started to appear.
A number of books and calendars containing such photos even were pub-
lished (Ellis 2014a, b, 2016; Trompka 2014). These pictures usually show
the animal extending its paw toward the lens of the camera, but just a bit
off as if it is pressing the release button of a camera phone (see Fig. 1.1).
Some animal owners claim that their cats or dogs are indeed capable of
taking veritable selfies themselves (Phillips Badal 2016).4 What qualifies
these pictures as selfies is, however, that they show the gesture that is
 The Selfie as Image (and) Practice 3

Fig. 1.1 Collection of animal selfies

4 J. Eckel et al.

familiar from “human” selfies, a gesture that indicates that the subject
controlling the shutter release button of the camera is also the object of
the picture. Animal selfies can be considered as a self-reflexive pictorial
form insofar as they lay bare what visibly defines the typical selfie photo-
graph. They take recourse to the clearest generic marker that is needed to
render a photograph recognizable, even readable, as a selfie. Animal self-
ies highlight the status of the selfie as a “gestural picture,” to use Paul
Frosh’s words: The gesture “is simultaneously mediating (the outstretched
arm executes the taking of the selfie) and mediated (the outstretched arm
becomes a legible sign within selfies of, among other things, the selfieness
of the image)” (Frosh 2015, 1611, emphasis in original).
Thus, the question of what constitutes a selfie is a crucial one and, at
the same time, is not easy to answer. While images like animal selfies
contribute to the phenomenon on a practical and pictorial level, there
seems to be an urge to define the selfie on a terminological/discoursive
level as well. The most common and most frequently cited definition
found in the selfie discourse is the one quoted in the press release of the
Oxford Dictionaries (2013): “a photograph that one has taken of oneself,
typically one taken with a smartphone or webcam and uploaded to a
social media website.”5 Since this definition repeatedly serves as a refer-
ence point within this volume and therefore offers a starting point to
analyze the basic ambiguity that troubles selfie research, we will have a
closer look at its different components in the next subsections.6

“A photograph that one has taken of oneself”

The definition leaves no doubt: Only photographs can count as selfies;

drawings or paintings as well as moving pictures are ruled out.7 Among
the plethora of photographs, selfies are those where the photographed
subject controls the photograph: Subject/author and object of the image
coincide.8 I myself have taken this photo of me, this is exactly what the
gesture of the extended arm in the selfie designates: “If both your hands
are in the picture and it’s not a mirror shot, technically, it’s not a selfie”
 The Selfie as Image (and) Practice 5

(Saltz 2014). The definition is vague and very extensive in another respect,
however: Any photographic picture that someone has taken of herself/
himself may be named a selfie, which includes analog as well as digital
photographs. It further encompasses photographs that do not show the
face9 of the photographer but, for instance, their backside (a bum selfie,
or belfie) or feet (a foot selfie, felfie or footfie).10 Likewise, a selfie may—
and often does—stage more people than just the photographer (and con-
sequently might be specified as usie, ussie, wefie, or groupfie). In this
respect, it is significant that the definition avoids the art historical termi-
nology of the self-portrait. A portrait in the strict sense is meant to not
only show parts of the bodily surface of a person at a certain point in time
but to pictorially express or capture the individual’s personal i­dentity.11
Still, according to the first part of the definition, a self-portrait would also
count as a selfie as long as it is photographic.12

“taken with a smartphone or a webcam”

This part of the definition specifies the selfie as a form of digital imag-
ing.13 It is a qualification that certainly has to do with the fact that spe-
cific kinds of digital devices—smartphones or webcams—are expressly
built to picture their users. Especially front-facing cameras in smart-
phones that were introduced in 2003 with Sony Ericsson’s Z1010 and
incorporated into Apple’s iPhone in 2010 serve as an infrastructure for
self-imaging. Both were developed with a view to videotelephony, that is,
in order to transmit (and not record) moving (instead of static) images of
the user. The significantly inferior quality of these cameras is due to the
projected use. Thus, the remarkable improvement of the rear-facing cam-
era, reaching 7 megapixels with the iPhone 7 in 2016, can be considered
a reaction to its now-prevalent use as a photographic camera rather than
a videotelephonic interface. Today’s smartphones have therefore techno-
logically implemented and materially stabilized the photographic prac-
tice of the selfie.14 By including specific image technologies, the Oxford
English Dictionary (OED) definition moreover stresses the particular
6 J. Eckel et al.

form in which the “photograph that one has taken of oneself ” nowadays
operates. The exposure is not started by a remote shutter release or a self-­
timer but is consciously initiated by a camera operator who is controlling
his/her image on the display.

“uploaded to a social media website”

The final part of the definition testifies to the fundamental communicative

function of the selfie as a “connected” and “conversational” image: Social
media sites link shared photos of one user to photos of many others and even
invite them to react to an uploaded selfie by posting a selfie of their own
(Gunthert 2014).15 Hence, the practice of sharing selfies is at the core of a
new form of personal photography that is not private anymore, as family
snapshots stored in a photo album used to be, but a form that is directed
toward sharing pictures with others from the outset. The selfie may be con-
sidered as, in the words of André Gunthert, “perhaps the oldest identifiable
use of connected image[s].” (Gunthert 2014) Often selfies are taken with
anticipation of being shared on social media or via online messaging services.
Anja Dinhopl and Ulrike Gretzel (2016, 130) even declare the practice the
principal criterion, when they decide to understand selfies as “not confined
to one specific type of technology or a specific genre of photograph or video,
but as characterized by the desire to frame the self in a picture taken to be
shared with an online audience.” Within networked culture, digital images
are made and meant to be shared. The fact that selfies are technologically
tied to communication devices such as the webcam and the smartphone
underlines the nexus of camera phone pictures and communicative
exchange.16 This bias toward communication has brought about transforma-
tions in the temporality of photography. Once, personal photographs were
directed toward the past with the object of inducing and anchoring memo-
ries. On social media platforms, where the material basis of photography has
changed from photochemistry to digital code and electronic signals, it has
developed into a kind of “‘live’ medium” (Frosh 2015, 1609). “A conven-
tional photograph mediates […] from there-then to here-now,” Mikko Villi
(2015a, 16, emphasis in original) points out: “By, contrast, a photograph
sent from a camera phone immediately after capture can form a connection
between there-now and here-now.” (Villi 2015a, 16, emphasis in original)
 The Selfie as Image (and) Practice 7

“typically”

This seemingly marginal adverb of partial revocation is relevant because

it renders all subsequent specifications secondary and reduces the require-
ments for a selfie to the minimum of a self-photographic picture. Apart
from the “ideal type”—a selfie shot, taken with a smartphone/webcam
and shared online—there do exist a range of photographic self-­
representations that nevertheless claim to be selfies. From this point of
view, a picture that is stored for memory purposes only and never shown
to others can be seen as a selfie too;17 as well as a cat selfie or dog selfie, a
robot or drone selfie, a video or time-lapse selfie, a felfie or belfie, et
cetera—all the images that are named and labeled selfies may be taken
into account as not typical but still eligible selfies.18
Furthermore, the hashtag or the term “selfie” is frequently applied to
portraits that are posted online but have obviously not been taken by the
person shown in the photograph. A good example for this wide reach,
which has been discussed by Matthew Bellinger (2015), is the photo of
former UK Prime Minister David Cameron that he shared on his Twitter
account on March 5, 2014, showing him on the phone while the posted
text is referring to a phone conversation with Barack Obama about
Russia’s annexation of Ukraine. Although the picture was obviously not a
selfie, it was labeled as such in various articles of mainstream news media
(Bellinger 2015, 1808). Like this example, the hashtag #selfie is fre-
quently used on social media platforms for photographs that are not self-
ies in the stricter sense of the OED definition. This form of tagging places
the self-communicating self above the self-picturing self:19 In this respect,
a selfie is a photograph showing myself that I have decided to share.
The opposite emphasis on the pictorial aspect of the definition comes
to the fore when “cat selfies” that could by no means have been uploaded
by the animal are designated as selfies, not just as their parody. The label
“selfie” has become so popular that its use has turned very vague. A thin
volume teaching the mise-en-scène of self-portraits with a digital camera
has changed its title from Shooting Yourself in 2013 to Selfie in 2014
(Kamps 2013, 2014). With regard to the labeling of portraits as selfies,
this case may look the same as using the hashtag #selfie, but the underly-
ing logic differs: On one hand, the communicative use of the picture
8 J. Eckel et al.

gives a reason for labeling a picture a selfie; on the other hand, the self-­
photographic quality of the picture “taken by oneself ” justifies the label
selfie. These two aspects—communicative practice and aesthetic fea-
tures—intersect in the practice of the selfie. “Its logic,” Daniel Rubinstein
(2015, 173) contends, “does not distinguish between the act of ‘taking,’
‘making’ or ‘snapping’ and the act of uploading and sharing.” Yet there is
disagreement in selfie research as to which aspect is most important.
Rubinstein, for example, singles out “its instant shareability” as “the
defining quality of the selfie” (ibid.), and Gunthert (2014) equates the
conversational with a “[v]ictory of use over content” and reasons that the
“new visual practices cannot be analyzed only through the grid of aesthet-
ics.” Edgar Gómez Cruz and Helen Thornham (2015, 2) insist likewise
that the perfect pictorial representation of the individual is not the point
of the selfie—it is “the practices and contexts” that matter “rather than
the image ‘itself.’” Villi’s (2015b, 31) perspective emanates more from the
technology of the smartphone but nevertheless pleads that “selfie culture,
therefore[,] should be understood specifically by focusing on communi-
cation, social media, instant messaging services and camera phones rather
than studying it in the context of photography.” In contrast, Theresa
Senft and Nancy Baym (2015, 1589), editors of the special section
“Selfies” in the International Journal of Communication, conceptualize the
selfie as “a way of speaking” and conclude that “although there is no
denying the role technology has played in the rise of the selfie phenom-
enon, as communications theorists, we are more interested in the selfie as
cultural artifact and social practice.” And finally, Alise Tifentale (2016,
76) stresses the connection of both levels again when she develops her
concept of the “networked camera” with regard to technological condi-
tions but at the same time suggests “to understand the selfie as a hybrid
phenomenon that merges the aesthetics of photographic self-portraiture
with the social functions of online interpersonal communication.”20
Up to now, one can conclude, selfie research is shaped by these two
sometimes conflicting but often just as well complementary approaches
of focusing on the image (i.e., the technological and aesthetic dimensions
of the selfie) as opposed to focusing on image practices (i.e., the commu-
nicative and social dimensions of the selfie). To give another example,
this tension can also be traced in the first two monographs explicitly deal-
 The Selfie as Image (and) Practice 9

ing with selfies, both published in 2014: Brooke Wendt’s The Allure of the
Selfie: Instagram and the New Self-Portrait (2014, 18) reflects the changing
function of snapshot photography and how the notion of “self-­perfection”
is historically conveyed in camera ads. Selfie practices are contextualized
as part of a networked culture, and the issue of identity formation, which
seems to be the key question of the book, is accompanied by an analysis
of aesthetic practices like the use of filters (25–30) and patterns of facial
expression in the history of photographic self-portraiture (38–44). Jill
Walker Rettberg’s Seeing Ourselves Through Technology: How We Use Selfies,
Blogs and Wearable Devices to See and Shape Ourselves contextualizes selfies
among other modes of self-presentation and self-quantification in online
media and offers a more critical view on the issue of big data and surveil-
lance. Similar to Wendt’s approach, Rettberg stresses the question of
identity formation and locates selfies within the longer history of media
of self-representation (2004, 2–19).
In contrast to all these academic attempts to localize selfie practice
within the history of photography and web culture, the public debate in
print and online media was (and is) strongly driven by an interpretation
of the selfie as a symptom of narcissism21 and selfishness22 and is thus
more oriented toward the questions why people take selfies, what these
photos (are allowed to) depict, and how the sheer quantity of selfies is to
be understood. From the beginning, the public debate has been fueled by
fears of the presumed dangers of selfie culture: Popular books like UnSelfie:
Why Empathetic Kids Succeed in Our All-About-Me World (Borba 2016)
even attest the selfie a somewhat monstrous status, converting it into a
nonword that is used as a pars pro toto to summarize all problematic
aspects of children’s life in a digital media world. The “Selfie Syndrome,”
as Borba calls it, “is all about self-promotion, personal branding, and self-­
interest at the exclusion of others’ feelings, needs, and concerns.” (xv)
News articles claiming to prove a connection between selfie culture and
mental illness by referring to supposedly scientific or medical/therapeutic
statements have pushed this debate toward supporting a pathologization
of selfie culture.23 But as Senft and Baym (2015, 1590) point out, “to
date, we have not seen a single peer-reviewed piece of scientific literature
that convincingly demonstrates that selfie production and mental illness
are correlated.”24 Rather, they oppose the discourses of pathology
10 J. Eckel et al.

s­ urrounding the selfie phenomenon by suggesting a scholarly and activist

understanding of selfie practices (1589–1590). Until now most of the
publications that have worked against the simplification of the selfie as a
symptom of narcissism and (most often female)25 self-exposure are
counted among the fields of Cultural Studies, Cultural Anthropology,
and Sociology with a strong emphasis on topics such as gender and self-­
empowerment (e.g., Walker 2005; Albury 2015; Hampton 2015; Senft
2015; Tiidenberg and Gómez Cruz 2015; Duguay 2016), subjectivity
and identity (e.g., Charteris et al. 2014), class (Nemer and Freeman
2015), teen culture (Ringrose and Harvey 2015), social regulation and
repressive normativity (Boon and Pentney 2015; Burns 2015; Meese
et al. 2015), or political action (Coladonato 2014). A critical stance
locates the selfie among practices of self-improvement, self-marketing,
and self-branding that are imposed on the individual under the condi-
tions of neoliberalism. From this perspective, posting selfies looks less like
a form of empowerment than a form of commodification of the self
(Schwarz 2010; Schroeder 2013; Wright 2015; Abidin 2016). Whereas
the first scholarly publications about selfies were anchored in the ques-
tion of self-representation, the focus has quickly shifted toward a descrip-
tion of the diverse practices selfie snappers are engaged in so as to counter
the interpretation of selfies as isolated images. Ethnographic research
projects have highlighted that the selfie is to be understood not only as a
means of self-representation or a representational image but rather as a
form of communication that is bound to specific social as well as
­technological conditions (Gómez Cruz and Thornham 2015). The focus
on users and practices is continued in publications that contextualize self-
ies in network culture, for instance, describing selfies as a genre within
the broader context of meme culture (Bellinger 2015). Yet it has become
increasingly clear that studies about selfies as social practice equally need
to reflect the technological conditions of these forms of media use, such
as the parameters of apps, computing devices like smartphones, and (big)
data flows. As the Selfiecity project, initiated by Lev Manovich and his
team in 2013, has demonstrated, the sheer mass of pictures challenges
established approaches in the humanities and social sciences and calls for
methodological extensions toward Software Studies, big data analysis,
and new visualization tools (Tifentale 2015, 50–51).
 The Selfie as Image (and) Practice 11

During the conference on which this volume is based,26 these opposing

views regarding what constitutes a selfie and which of its aspects have to
be taken into account when researching it were intensely debated: Is it
possible to understand the selfie as a visual entity, a picture, a pictorial
genre, or even a subgenre of the photographic self-portrait? And can the
selfie therefore be put to an image critique? Or is the pictorial aspect
always secondary to the conversational use, to the contextualization of
the picture in a communicative context?
In order to cover this controversy and further the understanding of the
selfie, this collection follows different objectives. First, the chapters strive
to establish a historical context for an evaluation of the specifics of the
selfie as a picture and a particular phenomenon of network culture; sec-
ond, they offer theoretical concepts and models in order to understand
the selfie as a representation of an individual and a pictorial artifact, on
one hand, and as a practice of communication and the social production
of the self, on the other. Finally, the chapters provide analytical insights
into selected fields in the vast space of selfie practices, like selfies taken by
kids and teenagers, in different countries and social contexts.27
In order to provide systematic orientation, the chapters have been
arranged in four sections.
The aim of Section 1 is to situate the selfie within the field of media
history and theory, debating to what extent the selfie can be understood
as a (re-)iteration or transformation of established forms of self-­portraiture
and self-photography. André Gunthert traces a social history of the selfie
and discusses the reasons for its belated recognition as an important and
widespread, but at the same time supposedly socially and psychologically
harmful image practice. Jens Ruchatz focuses on the self-reflexive poten-
tials of the selfie by dealing with a phenomenon that seems to be strongly
connected and even accountable for the selfie hype: not the selfie itself
but photographs of people taking selfies. Kris Belden-Adams addresses
the selfie from an art history perspective by searching for potential prede-
cessors in the field of self-portraiture and self-photography. This art his-
torical focus is widened in Angela Krewani’s chapter by connecting the
selfie to the self-­monitoring features of video technology and especially
its use in video art and installations.
12 J. Eckel et al.

The next three sections pay special attention to the aforementioned

tension between approaches focusing on the selfie as image and on its
technological conditions and those addressing it as practice and social
habit. All three sections incorporate both aspects by—in slightly differing
ways—focusing on the selfie as a relation between a concept of the “self ”
(understood as a dynamic discoursive construct) and its appearance on/
through displays (understood as technical devices as well as processes of
showing). This differentiation is not to be interpreted as a(nother) clear-
cut separation of rivaling stances but rather as a vibrant field of argumen-
tative positions that are (as the review of current selfie research has shown)
always intermingled and therefore inseparable when it comes to selfie
culture. The variations in the connection of self and display in the section
titles point to these different dimensions of relationality: Section 2, “The
Displayed Self,” focuses on the selfie as an aesthetic object and networked
image, which is characterized by a self being displayed, constituted, and
dealt with through a photographic image and additionally through its
social media c­ ontexts. Section 3, “The Self on Display,” shifts the focus a
bit more toward the technological conditions of selfie culture, the disposi-
tif that it stems from and that is invoked by it, since it is (typically) a digi-
tal image that is bound to the factual display of a technological device in
order to be visible and operable for users. The final section, “Displaying
the Self,” addresses the processuality of the selfie as an act of displaying,
thus pointing to its subjective, social, and cultural dimensions and its
relevance as a stereotypical as well as creative and playful practice of deal-
ing with (our)selves and technologies.
Section 2—“The Displayed Self ”—starts with a chapter by Hagi
Kenaan, who explores the connection between selfie and face from a
philosophical perspective, raising questions of how the changes in the
visuality of the face induced by the selfie—as a contemporary mode of
inter-facing and facing oneself—may lead to changes in concepts of iden-
tity. Julia Eckel’s contribution deals with the topic of identity as well: By
discussing the “displayed authorship” of the selfie, which seems to be
essential for its definition, and by connecting it to the Foucauldian con-
cept of the “author function,” she outlines the potential of the selfie to
visually negotiate ideas of “the subject” in digital, networked societies.
The authorial gesture of the selfie is also the focus of Alise Tifentale and
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
mechanical service in the household life of the community. According
to Manu the highest merit for this class was to serve faithfully the
other three classes. The Sudras performed the most degrading
tasks, and were allowed to come into contact with the Aryan
population only as menials. On account of their filthy habits these
aboriginals were not allowed a close approach to the persons of the
higher classes—hence the origin of the term “untouchable.” Yet the
fact stands that even the “untouchables” are members of the Hindu
family group. At marriages and other festivals gifts are freely
exchanged between them and the upper classes. For a householder
it is equally important to participate in the ceremonies of the village
“untouchables” and his own cousins. I remember very clearly how as
a young boy I was instructed by my mother to bow each morning
before every elder member of the family, nor forgetting the servants,
or Sudras.
Bhagavad Gita, the Bible of the Hindus, lays down the following rules
for the different castes of India:

“The duties of the Brahmins, Kshatriyas, Vaishyas, as also of

Sudras, are divided in accordance with their nature-born
qualities. Peace, self-restraint, austerities, purity, forgiveness,
and uprightness, knowledge, direct intuition, and faith in God are
the natural qualities of the Brahmin. Of the Kshatriyas, bravery,
energy, fortitude, dexterity, fleeing not in battle, gift and
lordliness are the nature-born qualities. Agriculture, protection of
cows, merchandise, and various industries are the nature-born
duties of the Vaishyas. Conscientiousness in menial service is
the nature-born duty of the Sudras. A man attains perfection by
performing those duties which he is able to do.”

This division of duties among the different castes “in accordance with
their nature-born qualities” needs special notice. We find here that
the original distinctions between different classes were made on the
basis of their natural qualifications. “The purpose of the early Hindu
sociologists was to design a society in which opportunity was
allowed to everyone for only such experience as his mental and
spiritual status was capable.” In the beginning, castes were not fixed
by iron barriers, nor were the occupations and professions of the
people hereditary. There was freedom for expansion, and everyone
enjoyed the privilege of rising into the higher scales of social rank
through a demonstration of his power and ability to do so. It is a
curious fact of Hindu history that nearly all of its incarnations,—
namely, Buddha, Rama, Krishna—belonged to the second or military
caste. But the Hindu castes had already lost their flexible natures as
early as the sixth century B.C., when Buddha once again preached
the doctrines of equality to all classes of people. Through the
influence of Buddhist teachings and for over a thousand years during
which Buddhism reigned over India, artificial hereditary caste
divisions among peoples were almost entirely demolished and
forgotten. “Buddha gave to the spirit of caste a death-blow. He
refused to admit differences between persons because of their color
or race. He would not recognize a Brahman because he was born a
Brahman. On the other hand he distinguished between people
according to their intellectual status and moral worth.”[29] He who
possessed the qualities of “peace, self-restraint, self-control,
righteousness, devotion, love for humanity, and divine wisdom” was
alone a true Brahman. To the Buddhist, caste was less important
than character. His Jataka tales preached this doctrine in a simple
but highly eloquent manner:

“It is not right

To call men white
Who virtue lack;
For it is sin
And not the skin
That makes men black.
Not by the cut of his hair,
Not by his clan or birth,
May a Brahmin claim the Brahmin’s name,
But only by moral worth.”[30]

About 600 A. D. however, when Buddhism declined and the

Brahmans regained their power, caste was once again established
on the old hereditary lines. Since that time the influence of the
vicious system has prevailed, except when it was checked by such
teachers as Chaityna who have regularly appeared at critical periods
of the country’s history. Nanak’s influence in modern times has been
the strongest in breaking down the barriers of caste. He was born
near Lahore (Punjab) in the year 1469 A.D. and became the founder
of the Sikh religion. He recognized the equality of all human beings,
irrespective of their color, rank, or sex. In one of his most popular
verses he says:

“One God produced the light, and all creatures are of His
creation. When the entire universe has originated from one
source, why do men call one good and the other bad?”

Even in the present day the followers of Nanak are a tremendous

force in demolishing caste. In a recent general assembly of the Sikhs
held at Amritsar (the official headquarters of the Sikh religion) it was
announced that at all future gatherings of the community, and in all
of its free kitchens everywhere, cooks belonging to the “untouchable”
class shall be freely employed and even given special preference.
As a beginning of this policy the usual pudding offering of the Sikhs
was distributed by “untouchable” men and women to a group of
nearly twenty thousand delegates at the convention. Prior to this,
resolutions condemning “untouchability” had been passed on
innumerable occasions at social service conferences; but never
before had the ages-old custom been trampled upon, in a practical
way, by any other community belonging to the Hindu religion. May
this auspicious beginning inaugurate a triumphant conclusion. It is
sincerely hoped that the leadership of Gandhi and the virile followers
of Nanak in removing the curse of “untouchability” will soon be
recognized by the entire Hindu community. This alone could insure
the enthusiastic Hindu nationalists political economic freedom for
their country. Had it not been for the selfishness of the Brahmans
during the mediæval period,—a selfishness which has tended to
segregate the Hindus into different sections through the strict caste
restrictions of various types,—India would occupy today the
vanguard of the world’s progress instead of the rear. In spite of her
present weakness India possesses, however, within herself a
marvelous reserve force which will enable her to pass through this
crisis. While the haughty West, which has always delighted in
taunting the Hindus for the latter’s caste, has not even begun to
examine her problem of race-conflict, India is already on its way to
solving her own caste problem. Gradually, as the younger generation
among the Hindus gains more power, “untouchability” and its allied
diseases will disappear. Personally, I believe that the leaders of India
are headed in the right direction, and that soon equality among
members of the different castes will be established in the country as
a permanent part of its social structure.
“In the Hindu system, once the people were divided into different
castes, equality of opportunity for all prevailed within their own
castes, while the caste or group as a whole had collective
responsibilities and privileges.” Each caste had its own rules and
code of honor; and so long as a man’s mode of living was
acceptable to his caste-fellows, the rest of the community did not
care about it at all. On the other hand, a man’s status in the outside
world or his wealth made no change in his rank within the caste. I
shall offer an illustration from my own experience. During the
mourning week after the death of a near relative of His Royal
Highness, the ruling Prince of the native State of Kashmir, Her Royal
Highness gave a state reception to the sympathizing friends.
Whereas she greeted the wives of the two highest officials in the
State, the English Resident and the Prime Minister, with a nod of the
head from her seat, Her Royal Highness had to receive standing the
humble housekeeper in my brother’s home, because the latter
belonged to the same caste as the ruling prince. “Society thus
organized can be best described by the term Guild Socialism.”
Another distinctive feature in the study of its caste is the communal
character of Hindu life. Hindu society was established on a basis of
group morality. No set of rules were held binding on all classes alike,
but within a given caste the freedom of the individual was
subordinated to the interest of the caste. Men lived not for their own
interests or comfort, but for the benefit of the community. It was a life
of self-sacrifice, and the concept of duty was paramount. The good
of caste, of race, of nation stood first, and that of the individual
second. Social welfare was placed before the happiness of the
individual. “For the family sacrifice the individual, for the community
the family, for the country the community, for the soul all the world.”
Which of the two ideals, the communism of the Hindu or the
individualism of the Westerner is the better? Says Rabindranath
Tagore: “Europe may have preached and striven for individualism,
but where else in the world is the individual so much of slave?”
On the other hand it must be remembered also that all ideals are
good only so far as they assist the individual to develop his full
manhood, and the moment they begin to hamper him in his natural
growth and thwart his own will they lose their value. So long as the
caste regulations of the Hindus assisted them in their spiritual
development, they were justified. But the moment they began to lose
their original character and became an oppression in the hands of
the priestly classes, who used their authority to stifle the nation’s
spirit, they had lost their usefulness and invited the ridicule and
censure of all intelligent thinkers.
Where finer feelings of fraternal human-fellowship prevailed over
self-interest and individual gain, in such a community no voice cried
in vain at the time of distress. When deaths in the family left small
children parentless, or sickness and misfortunes made homes
penniless, the protection of other members of the caste was always
available for those in need. Orphans and helpless members within
the caste were taken into the homes of caste brothers and carefully
brought up and fed with the rest as members of the family. Here the
lucky and the unlucky were brought up side by side. Thus there has
never arisen in India the necessity of orphanages and poorhouses.
As was said by an eminent English writer:[31] “For to the ripe and
mellow genius of the East it has been always clear that the
defenceless and unfortunate require a home, not a barrack.”
Let us now review the entire subject of caste thus: The Aryan
invaders of India found themselves surrounded by hordes of
aboriginal and inferior races. Under similar conditions the European
invaders of America and Australia exterminated the original
population by killing them off, or converted them into human slaves;
the Hindu Aryans avoided both of these inhumanities by taking the
native inhabitants of the land into their social life. They gave these
inferior peoples a distinct place in the scale of labor, and assigned to
them the duties of menial service, for which alone they were qualified
at the time. Further, to safeguard their superior culture, the Aryan
leaders laid down strict rules against intermarriage with their non-
Aryan neighbors. And as these aboriginals were filthy in their habits
and mostly carrion-eaters, it was also ordained as a measure of
hygienic precaution that the Aryans should not be allowed to drink
the same water or eat food cooked by non-Aryan hands. This was
the beginning of untouchability.
Simultaneously with this racial division rose a functional division
among the Aryan population separating it into three orders of priests,
warriors, and husbandmen. This constituted the four-fold division of
the Hindu caste system—the Aryan inhabitants of the land forming
the first three castes of Brahmans, Khashatriyas, and Vaishyas,
while the non-Aryans constituted the fourth caste of servants or
Sudras. At first these divisions into different castes were flexible and
persons in the lower castes were allowed to rise into the ones higher
by virtue of their merit. We find that most of the historic religious
teachers of the Hindus, namely, Rama, Krishna, and Buddha, came
from the second class.
Gradually, however, the castes began to lose their flexible nature,
and before the birth of Buddha in the year 600 B. C. they had
already acquired a hereditary character. The teachings of Buddhism
had the tendency to break down the hereditary barriers of caste, and
during a thousand years of its reign the people of India had forgotten
their caste boundaries. “Around 600 A. D. Buddhism began to
decline and the Brahman priests gained fresh prestige. They set up
the different castes on the old hereditary lines once again, and,
except for a few local breaks through the appearance of such
leaders as Nanak in Punjab and Chaityna in the South, the spirit of
caste has prevailed throughout Hindu India since the decline of
Buddhism.” The greatest champion of the lower classes who has
appeared in recent times is the peaceful leader of India’s silent
revolution, Mahatma Gandhi. He has spoken and written against
untouchability and its allied evils more bitterly and longer than
against other vital political and economic wrongs of the country. He
has told his countrymen time and again that India’s soul cannot
become pure so long as untouchability stays amongst the Hindus to
defile it. And as a proof of his own sincerity in the matter he has
adopted in his own family an untouchable girl whom he calls the joy
of the household.
The evils of caste are quite manifest. It has tended to divide the
Hindu community into various groups and thus destroyed among
them unity of feeling which alone could insure national strength. Lack
of united power opened the way for foreign invasions, which, again,
has resulted in dragging India down from her former place of glory to
her present state of humiliation and ruin. Yet alongside with the
many evils of India’s caste system several advantages have accrued
from it. Its existence has tended to make the people of India
conservative and tolerant. With the institution of caste they felt so
well fortified within themselves that they did not fear the influx of new
ideas into their midst. India offered a safe and welcome home to the
oppressed minorities from other lands. The Parsis and Jews came
and settled there. They were not merely tolerated but welcomed by
the Hindus, because the latter, assured of their own wonderful
powers of resistance, had nothing to fear from outside influences.
The Hindu caste system may be described as “the social formulation
of defence minus all elements of aggression.” Since the beginning of
her history India has been subjected to numerous invasions, but she
has stood against them successfully. In the cultural sense India,
instead of being conquered, “has always succeeded in conquering
her conquerors.” The invaders belonging to different civilizations and
races have come and disappeared, one after the other; but India still
survives.[32]
Again, in the Hindus’ scheme of the division of labor care was taken
to assign to every man his task and remuneration in such a manner
as to avoid all unnecessary friction among the different classes. Its
value will be readily recognized by those who are familiar with the
evils of modern industrialism, arising from the intense hatred within
the different classes.
Finally, it must be said to the credit of Hindu sociologists that, at
least, they had the courage to face the problem of race-conflict with
a sympathetic mind. The problem was not of their creation. The
diversity of races existed in India before these new Aryan invaders
came into the country. The caste system of the Hindus was the result
of their sincere endeavors to seek a solution of their difficult problem.
Its object was to keep the different races together and yet afford
each one of them opportunity to express itself in its own separate
way. “India may not have achieved complete success in this. But
who else has? It was, at least, better than the best which the West
has thought of so far. There the stronger races have either
exterminated the weaker ones like the Red Indians in America, or
shut them out completely like the Asiatics in Australia and America.”
“Whatever may be its merits,” says Tagore, “you will have to admit
that it does not spring from the higher impulses of civilization, but
from the lower passions of greed and hatred.”

FOOTNOTES:
[25] Max Müller.
[26] Tagore.
[27 Tagore.
[28] Quoted from Otto Rothfield—Women of India.
[29] E. W. Hopkins.
[30] Jataka, 440. Quoted from E. W. Hopkins Ethics of India.
[31] Margaret E. Noble.
[32] Tagore.
 Chapter V
GANDHI—THE MAN AND HIS MESSAGE
Mohandass Karamchand Gandhi is today the acknowledged leader
of three hundred million inhabitants of India. He is the author of the
Non-violent Non-coöperation movement, adopted by the Indian
National Congress as a weapon of passive resistance wherewith to
win India’s freedom. In March, 1922, because of his public activities
in India as a leader of this movement, Gandhi was convicted on the
charge of promoting disaffection towards the British crown, and was
sentenced to six years’ incarceration. He was released from prison,
however, in 1924 by a special order of the British Labor Government.
Since that time he has remained the most powerful and beloved
public figure in the nationalist movement of India.
His movement has aroused great interest among the different
peoples of the world. But the information given to the outside public
has been so vague and disconnected that it has led to very
erroneous conclusions. So much of pure nonsense in the form of
praise and ridicule of Gandhi and his activities has been passed
around that it has become difficult for the earnest student to separate
the real from the fictitious. Therefore it is only fitting that we should
make a careful study of the man and his message.
A sufficient number of scholars, students, missionaries, travelers,
and writers have studied him carefully enough to enable them to
form a reliable opinion. Irrespective of their missions, opinions, and
designations, these investigators all agree as to the magnetic
personality of Gandhi and to the purity of his private and public life.
“His sweet, subtle sense of humor, and his profound confidence in
the ultimate triumph of truth and justice as against falsehood and
oppression never fail to influence and inspire everyone who comes
his way.” Even the very judge who, seven years ago, sentenced him
to six years’ incarceration could not resist the temptation to call him
“a great patriot and a great leader,” and to pay him the tribute: “Even
those who differ from you in politics look up to you as a man of high
ideals and as leading a noble and even saintly life.”
Gandhi, born at Ahmedabad (India) in October, 1869, had all the
advantages of an early education under careful guidance. His father,
Karamchand Gandhi, a wealthy man and a statesman by profession,
combined in himself the highest political wisdom and learning
together with an utter simplicity of manner. He was respected
throughout Deccan, in which (province) he was prime minister of a
native state, as a just man and an uncompromising champion of the
weak. “Gandhi’s mother was an orthodox Hindu lady, with stubborn
religious conceptions. She led a very simple and dignified life after
the teachings of the Hindu Vedas.” She was a very jealous and
affectionate mother and took a deep interest in the bringing up of her
children. Gandhi, the favorite “Mohan” of his parents, was the center
of all the cares and discipline of his loving relatives. He inherited
from his father a determination of purpose and the tenacity of a
powerful will, and from his mother a sense of religious and moral
purity of life. After graduating from a native school in his home town,
he was sent to England to finish his education. He fitted himself for
the bar at the University of London, and on his return to India was
admitted as an advocate of the High Court of Bombay. While still in
London, Gandhi acquired the habit of passing the best part of his
days in solitude. From the temptations of the boisterous London life
he could find escape only when he sat alone by his window, violin in
his lap, and thought of an unconquered spiritual world in his mind. A
product of the early favorable circumstances and all the advanced
education, Gandhi is thus a highly cultured gentleman with finished
manners. He possesses a happy temperament with but a tinge of
melancholy pervading his life and conduct.
As a patriot and leader of an oppressed people struggling for
freedom, Gandhi belongs in the category of the world’s great
liberators with such men as Washington, Lincoln, and Mazzini. As a
saintly person who has dedicated his life to preaching the gospel of
love and truth, and who has actually lived up to his preachings, he
ranks among such of the world’s great sages as Buddha, Jesus, and
Socrates. On the one hand a dangerous political agitator, an untiring
and unresting promoter of a huge mass revolution; yet on the other
an uncompromising champion of non-violence, a saint with the
motto, “Love thine enemies,” Gandhi stands unique, supreme,
unequalled, and unsurpassed.
His theory of a non-violent mass revolution aiming at the
dethronement of a powerful, militaristic government like the British
Bureaucracy in India, though strange and impractical at first thought,
is yet very simple and straightforward.
“Man is born free, and yet,” lamented Rousseau, “he is everywhere
in chains.” “Man is born free, why should he refuse to live free?”
questions Gandhi. Freedom is man’s birthright. With unlimited liberty
in thought and action man could live in perfect peace and harmony
on condition that all men would rigidly observe their own duties and
keep within their own rights. “But men as they are and not as they
should be, possess a certain amount of animal nature. In some it is
subdued, while in others, let loose, it becomes the cause of
disturbance and dislocates all freedom.” To safeguard against the
encroachment of such natures on the “natural rights” and privileges
of others, men have organized themselves into groups called states.
“By so doing, each voluntary member of this state foregoes some of
his personal rights in exchange for certain individual privileges and
communal rights to be secured under its protection. The government
of a country is thus a matter of voluntary choice by its people and is
organized to carry on such functions as shall conduce to the highest
good of the maximum number.” When it becomes corrupt, when
instead of protecting its members from every form of evil and
disorder, it becomes an instrument of the forces of darkness and a
tool of corruption, citizens have an inalienable right to demand a
change in the existing order. They might first attempt peaceful
reform, but should such attempts come to nought, the right of
revolution is theirs. It is indeed their right to refuse their coöperation,
direct or indirect, with a government which has been responsible for
the spiritual decadence and political degeneracy of their country.
Gandhi explains his attitude thus:
 “We must refuse to wait for the wrong to be righted till the
wrong-doer has been roused to a sense of his iniquity. We must
not, for fear of ourselves or others having to suffer, remain
participators in it. But we must combat the wrong by ceasing to
assist the wrong-doer directly or indirectly.
“If a father does an injustice, it is the duty of his children to leave
the parental roof. If the head-master of a school conducts his
institution on an immoral basis, the pupils must leave school. If
the chairman of a corporation is corrupt, the members must
wash their hands clean of his corruption by withdrawing from it;
even so, if a government does a grave injustice, the subject
must withdraw coöperation, wholly or partially, sufficiently to
wean the ruler from his wickedness. In each of the cases
conceived by me, there is an element of suffering whether
mental or physical. Without such suffering, it is impossible to
attain freedom.”
* * *
“The business of every god-fearing person is to dissociate
himself from evil in total disregard of consequences. He must
have faith in a good deed producing only a good result; that in
my opinion is the Gita doctrine of work without attachment. God
does not permit him to peep into the future. He follows truth
although the following of it may endanger his very life. He knows
that it is better to die in the way of God than to live in the way of
Satan. Therefore whoever is satisfied that this Government
represents the activity of Satan has no choice left to him but to
dissociate himself from it....”

For a period of more than twenty-five years, Gandhi coöperated with

the British Empire whenever it was threatened and stood in need.
Though he vehemently criticized it when it went wrong, yet he did not
wish its destruction until his final decision of non-coöperation in
1920. “He felt, that in spite of its abuses and shortcomings, the
system was mainly and intrinsically good.” Gandhi joined in the
World War on the side of the Allies. When the war started, he was in
England, where he organized an Ambulance Corps from among the
group of his compatriots residing there. Later on, in India, he
accepted a position in the British Recruiting Service as an honorary
officer, and strained himself to the breaking point in his efforts to
assist Great Britain.
“Gandhi gave proofs of his loyalty to the Empire and of his faith in
British justice by valuable services also on the occasion of the Anglo-
Boer war (1899) and the Zulu revolt (1906). In recognition of his
services on the two latter occasions he was awarded gold medals,
and his name was each time mentioned in the dispatches. Later, on
his return to India, he was awarded the Kaiser-i-Hind Gold Medal by
Lord Hardinge in recognition of his humanitarian services in South
Africa.” These medals he determinedly, though regretfully, returned
to the Viceroy of India on August 1, 1920. The letter that
accompanied them besides other things contained this statement:

“Your Excellency’s light-hearted treatment of the official crime,

your exoneration of Sir Michael O’Dwyer, Mr. Montague’s
dispatch and above all the shameful ignorance of the Punjab
events and callous disregard of the feelings of Indians betrayed
by the House of Lords, have filled me with the gravest
misgivings regarding the future of the Empire, have estranged
me completely from the present Government and have disabled
me from tendering, as I have hitherto whole-heartedly tendered,
my loyal coöperation.”

His statement in court at the time of his conviction in March, 1922,

when he pleaded guilty, reads:

“From a staunch loyalist and coöperator, I have become an

uncompromising disaffectionist and non-coöperator.... To preach
disaffection towards the existing system of government has
became almost a passion with me.... If I were set free, I would
still do the same. I would be failing in my duty if I did not do so....
I had to submit to a system which has done irreparable harm to
my country, or to incur the mad fury of my people, bursting forth
when they heard the truth from my lips.... I do not ask for mercy.
 I am here to invite and to submit to the highest penalty that can
be inflicted upon me for what in law is a crime, but which is the
first duty of every citizen.... Affection cannot be manufactured or
regulated by law.... I hold it to be a virtue to be disaffected
towards a government which, in its totality, has done more harm
to India than any previous system.... It is the physical and brutal
ill-treatment of humanity which has made many of my co-
workers and myself impatient of life itself.”

The chief distinction between Gandhi and other liberators, the chief
difference between him and other leaders was that he wanted his
countrymen to love their friends, and yet not to hate their enemies.
“Hatred ceaseth not by hatred; hatred ceaseth by love” was his sole
plea to his fellowmen. He enjoined them to love their oppressors, for
through love and suffering alone could these same oppressors be
brought to see their mistakes. Thus, following his public
announcement of the non-coöperation policy he embarked upon an
extensive tour of the country. Wherever he went he preached
disaffection towards the existing government.
Gandhi’s whole political career is inspired by a deep love for his
suffering countrymen. His heart burns with the desire to free his
country from its present state of thraldom and helpless servitude.
India, the cradle of civilization and culture, for ages the solitary
source of light and of wisdom, whence issued the undying message
of Buddhist missionaries, where empires flourished under the careful
guidance of distinguished statesmen, the land of Asoka and Akbar,
lies to-day at the tender mercy of a haughty conqueror, intoxicated
and maddened by the conquest of a helpless people. “Her arts
degenerated, her literatures dead, her beautiful industries perished,
her valor done,” she presents but a pitiful picture to the onlooking
world. Gandhi, the heroically determined son of India, feels the
impulse to save his motherland from the present state of “slow
torture, emasculation, and degradation,” and suggests to his
countrymen the use of the unique yet powerful weapon of peaceful
non-coöperation. Through this slow process of “self-denial” and “self-
purification” he proposes to carry his country forward till the goal of
its political emancipation and its spiritual freedom is fully realized.
Political freedom might be secured by force, but that is not what
Gandhi wishes. Unsatisfied with mere freedom of the body, he soars
higher and strives for a sublimer form of liberty, the freedom of the
soul. To the question, “Shall India follow the stern example of
Europe, and fight out its struggle for political and economic
independence?” Gandhi replies with an emphatic and unqualified
“No.” “What has Europe’s powerful military and material organization
done to insure its future peace?” Romain Rolland answers: “Half a
century ago might dominated right. To-day things are far worse.
Might is right. Might has devoured right.”
No people, no nation has ever won or ever can win real freedom
through violence. “Violence implies the use of force, and the force is
oppressive. Those who fight and win with force, ultimately find it both
convenient and expedient to follow the line of least resistance; and
they continue to rely upon force in time of peace as well, ostensibly
to maintain law and order, but practically to suppress and stifle every
rising spirit. The power may thus change hands, yet leave the evil
process to continue without a moment’s break. Non-violence does
not carry with it this degeneration which is inherent in the use of
violence.” Gandhi is highly eloquent on this score when he says:

“They may forget non-coöperation, but they dare not forget non-
violence. Indeed, non-coöperation is non-violence. We are
violent when we support a government whose creed is violence.
It bases itself finally not on right but might. Its last appeal is not
to reason, nor the heart, but to the sword. We are tired of this
creed and we have risen against it. Let us ourselves not belie
our profession by being violent.”

“One must love one’s enemies while hating their deeds; hate
Satanism while loving Satan” is the principal article of Gandhi’s faith,
and he has proved himself worthy of this lofty profession by his own
personal conduct. Through all the stormy years of his life he has
stood firm in his noble convictions, with his love untainted, his faith
unchallenged, his veracity unquestioned, and his courage
undaunted. “No criticism however sharp, no abuse however bitter,
ever affected the loving heart of Gandhi.” In the knowledge of his life-
long political associates (members of the Indian National Congress
and of other such organizations), Gandhi has never, even in
moments of the most violent excitement, lost control of himself.
When light-hearted criticisms have been showered on his program
by younger and more inexperienced colleagues, when the bitterest
sarcasms have been aimed at him by older associates, he has never
revealed by so much as a tone of his voice the slightest touch of
anger or the slightest show of contempt. His limit of tolerance has
not yet been reached.
During the last ten years of his political life in India when he guided
the destines of his countrymen as leader of a great movement,
Gandhi again gave unmistakable proofs of the vastness of his love
for mankind. That his love is not reserved for his compatriots alone,
but extends even to his bitterest enemies, he revealed clearly
throughout the most critical period of his life. His enemies, the British
bureaucrats, tried to nip his movement in the very bud by using all
the power at their command to discredit him in the eyes of his
countrymen and of the world outside. Calumnies were heaped upon
him from all sides. He was called a “hypocrite,” an “unscrupulous
agitator,” a “disguised autocrat.” The vast number of his followers
were branded as “dumb-cattle,” and hundreds of thousands of them
were flogged, imprisoned, and in some cases even shot for no other
offense than that of wearing the coarse hand-spun “Gandhi cap” and
singing the Indian national hymn. Even in such trying moments he
remained firm in his faith, and loyal to his professions. Evidence as
to the undisturbed, peaceful condition of his mind and spirit is amply
furnished by the following statements which he gave to the Indian
press in those turbulent days:

“Our non-violence teaches us to love our enemies. By non-

violent non-coöperation we seek to conquer the wrath of English
administrators and their supporters. We must love them and
pray to God that they might have wisdom to see what appears
to us to be their error. It must be the prayer of the strong and not
of the weak. In our strength must we humble ourselves before
our maker.
 “In the moment of our trial and our triumph let me declare my
faith. I believe in loving my enemies.... I believe in the power of
suffering to melt the stoniest heart.... We must by our conduct
demonstrate to every Englishman that he is as safe in the
remotest corner of India as he professes to feel behind the
machine gun.”
* * *
“There is only one God for us all, whether we find him through
the Bible, the Koran, the Gita, the Zindvesta or the Talmud, and
He is the God of love and truth. I do not hate an Englishman. I
have spoken much against his institutions, especially the one he
has set up in India. But you must not mistake my condemnation
of the system for that of the man. My religion requires me to love
him as I love myself. I have no interest in living except to prove
the faith in me. I would deny God if I do not attempt to prove it at
this critical moment.”

It must be remembered that all this was at a time when Mr. Gandhi
held undisputed sway over the hearts of his three hundred million
countrymen. Setting aside all precedence his countrymen
unanimously elected Gandhi dictator of the Indian National Congress
with full power to lead the country in emergencies. A word from him
was sufficient to induce the millions of India to sacrifice their lives
without regret or reproach. No man ever commanded the allegiance
of so great a number of men, and felt at the same time so meek.
Through the successive stages of “self-denial” and “self-purification”
he is gradually preparing his countrymen for the final step in his
program, the civil disobedience. Once the country has reached that
state, if his program is carried through, the revolution will have been
accomplished without shedding a drop of blood. Henry David
Thoreau once wrote: “When the officer has resigned office, and the
subject has refused allegiance, the revolution is accomplished.” That
will be the dawn of day, hopeful and bright. The forces of darkness
and of evil will have made room for those of light and of love. But this
will not come to pass unless Gandhi’s policy is literally adopted, and
ultimately triumphs. He explains:

“The political non-violence of the Non-coöperators does not

stand the test in the vast majority of cases. Hence the
prolongation of the struggle. Let no one blame the unbending
English nature. The hardest fiber must melt before the fire of
Love. When the British or other nature does not respond, the fire
is not strong enough.
“If non-violence is to remain the policy of the nation, we are
bound to carry it out to the letter and in the spirit. We must then
quickly make up with the English and the Coöperators. We must
get their certificate that they feel absolutely safe in our midst,
that they regard us as friends, although we belong to a radically
different school of thought and politics. We must welcome them
to our political platform as honored guests; we must receive
them on neutral platforms as comrades. Our non-violence must
not breed violence, hatred, or ill-will.
“If we approach our program with the mental reservation that,
after all, we shall wrest power from the British by force of arms,
then we are untrue to our profession of non-violence.... If we
believe in our program, we are bound to believe that the British
people are not unamenable to the force of affection, as they
undoubtedly are amenable to the force of arms.
“Swaraj is a condition of mind, and the mental condition of India
has been challenged.... India will win independence and Swaraj
only when the people have acquired strength to die of their own
free will. Then there will be Swaraj.”

Gandhi has been bitterly assailed by both friends and foes for having
consented to render assistance to the cause of the World War in
contradiction to his own teachings of non-resistance. Gandhi has
been accused of inconsistency and even his most ardent admirers
often fail to reconcile his doings during the war with the doctrine of
“Ahimsa” (non-violence to any form of life). In his autobiography he
has tried to answer these objections, which we shall now examine.
He writes:

“I make no distinction, from the point of view of ahimsa, between

combatants and non-combatants. He who volunteers to serve a
band of dacoits, by working as their carrier, or their watchman
while they are about their business, or their nurse when they are
wounded, is as much guilty of dacoity as the dacoits
themselves. In the same way those who confine themselves to
attending to the wounded in battle cannot be absolved from the
guilt of war.”

This statement shows that his reasons for going into the war were
different from those of the Quakers, who think it is an act of Christian
love to succor the wounded in war. Gandhi, on the contrary, believes
that the person who made bandages for the Red Cross was as much
guilty of the murder in war as were the fighting combatants. So long
as you have consented to become a part of the machinery of war,
whose object is destruction, you are yourself an instrument of
destruction. And however you may argue the issue you cannot be
absolved from the moral guilt involved. The man who has offered his
services as an ambulance carrier on the battlefield is helping the
war-lords just as much as his brother who carries arms. One is
assisting the cause of the war-lord by killing the enemy, the other by
helping war to do its work of murder more efficiently.
I am reminded of the argument I once had with a very conscientious
friend of mine, who is a stubborn enemy of war and yet who recalls
the following incident in his life with a sorrowful look in his face. One
day while he was living in London, a young friend of his came to say
his farewell before leaving for the front. Poison gas had been just
introduced into the war as a weapon. The combatants were
instructed to procure gas masks before departing, but the supply
was limited, and his young soldier friend had to go without a gas
mask. He left his permit, however, with the request that my friend
should get the mask when the next supply came in and send it to his
regimental address. Two days later the gas mask was mailed to this
boy soldier at the battle front. Before it reached there, however, the
soldier was already dead. On the first day after the arrival of the
regiment, it was heavily gassed by the enemy, and all of those who
had gone without the protective masks were killed. The parcel was
returned to my friend at his London address with the sad news that
his friend was here no more. He was bitterly disappointed that the
mask had not reached the beloved young man in time to save his
life. I interpret the whole affair in this way: In sending a gas mask to
this English soldier, my pacifist friend was conspiring, however
unconsciously, to kill the Germans. He wanted to save his friend
from death, but did he realize that at the same time he was wishing
more deaths on the enemy? He was, in fact, helping to save one
young man in order that this young man might kill more young men
on the other side. How does Gandhi justify his action in joining the
war, then? We shall let him speak once again. He writes:

“When two nations are fighting, the duty of a votary of ahimsa is

to stop the war. He who is not equal to that duty, he who has no
power of resisting war, he who is not qualified to resist war, may
take part in war, and yet whole-heartedly try to free himself, his
nation, and the world from war.
“I had hoped to improve my status and that of my people
through the British Empire. Whilst in England, I was enjoying the
protection of the British fleet, and taking as I did shelter under its
armed might, I was directly participating in its potential violence.
Therefore if I desired to retain my connection with the Empire
and to live under its banner, one of three courses was open to
me: I could declare open resistance against the war, and in
accordance with the law of Satyagraha, boycott the Empire until
it changed its military policy, or I could seek imprisonment by
civil disobedience of such of its laws as were fit to be disobeyed,
or I could participate in the war on the side of the Empire and
thereby acquire the capacity and fitness for resisting the
violence of war. I lacked this capacity and fitness, so I thought
there was nothing for it but for me to serve in the war.”

How far Mr. Gandhi’s explanation can answer the objections of his
critics we shall leave our readers to judge for themselves. The