All posts by achipemb

General Media Theory

Digital Surveillance: Body & Power

1 Comment

Introduction:

Our phones are constantly surveilling us, although we often fail to notice it. In this era of digital technology, we have grown accustomed to our devices requesting access to our data, our location, and ultimately our private lives. We have become accustomed to saying “yes” to breaches of our privacy without considering the repercussions and what these companies plan to do with our data. This passive willingness has kept us unaware of the larger political and economic systems that are at play. As society has become more polarized and capitalist, it is essential to be aware of the dangers inherent in digital surveillance. Companies are actively collecting, commercializing, and selling intimate data without informing the users. Lindsay Balfour’s Surveillance, Biopower, and Unsettling Intimacies discusses the dangers of surveillance of women’s intimate needs in the overturning of Roe v Wade. Balfour’s work reminds us of the hysteria that occurred after the overturning and the fear of period tracking apps selling our data to the United States government. In this era of political control of people’s bodies, especially marginalized communities, it is crucial that we stay aware of these dangers. These concerns become even more prevalent with the newly introduced government-funded AI-driven surveillance system to help ICE profile and hunt down immigrants across social media. This military grade surveillance system is being used to perpetuate fear and discrimination. Balfour’s analysis of intimate data and ICE’s extreme monitoring practices demonstrates how surveillance functions as a tool of power that aims to control the body and society. 

Biopower & Intimate Data:

After the overturning of Roe v Wade, I remember feeling worried about my menstrual application and the data it held. Before these political implementations, I had been utilizing a US-based company, Flo, before switching to Clue, a UK-based company that explicitly claimed that it would protect user’s health information. Looking back, this choice was more significant than I realized. Balfour discusses that in 2021, Flo reached a settlement with the FTC (Federal Trade Commission)  after being accused of sharing intimate health data of over 100 million users to third-party companies. Although Flo still claims they never sold this data, and that this settlement was “save time”, they were accused again in 2025 for collecting data and utilizing it for advising. This example demonstrates how easily our most intimate bodily data can be packaged, commodified, and circulated without our consent. While it may seem harmless for advertisers to have access to this information, the stakes become higher when such data can be accessed by the government or law enforcement. 

Through Balfour’s discussion of biopower, it becomes evident that these methods of surveillance do not simply observe the body; they regulate it. Balfour references Michel Foucault’s theory on biopower from Biopower: Foucault and Beyond, which is defined as a form of political power that regulates bodies and population by collecting and surveilling, ultimately working towards making a society that serves the government’s interest. Balfour reminds us that through collecting reproductive data that tracks cycles, predicts pregnancies, and perhaps informs about complications or personal choices, these platforms lose their neutrality. They participate in a political system that wants to govern bodies at a biological level. Balfour argues that “Platforms are no longer things outside or adjacent to us, whether hand-held or screen mediated; instead they are now embedded, both literally and figuratively in our lives and bodies”(60). The intersection between these digital platforms and our bodies can be dangerous when we understand its political consequences. With the increasingly strict regulations surrounding abortion and gender affirming care, choices that were meant to be private are being monitored without our consent. This is an attempt by the political system to limit self expression and autonomy, having society adhere to their values or be punished for deviation. We can see how the monitoring of our personal information is being used against us, putting our bodies and livelihoods at risk.

State Surveillance & Social Control:

This era of surveillance is not limited to regulating our bodies; it’s being increasingly used to control the population and immigration. As reported by The Lever, the Immigration and Custom Enforcement (ICE) has purchased a 5.7 million AI social media surveillance software that is designed to read over 8 billion social media posts a day. Although ICE claims that this software is meant to “detect threats,” there has been no public consent from social media users whose information is being run through this program. It becomes clear that the government is using digital surveillance to control and classify people as “dangerous” or “threatening” without proper investigation. This raises major concerns in this current polarized political climate, as many pro-Palestine activists have been targeted by immigration authorities after being doxxed (having their private information exposed). With the increase in anti-Latino immigration rhetoric, it is worrying how this technology will further perpetuate systems of violence. These surveillance methods work to silence political expression and place vulnerable communities at even more risk. This surveillance technology is extremely alarming, as there is a lot of secrecy surrounding it. Even after searching online, there was a surprising lack of articles on the topic. This lack of transparency demonstrates erasure of consent on digital platforms. Social Media companies that once promised to protect users’ privacy are easily allowing government access to their information without permission or warning. Serious matters such as immigration are being reduced to the qualifications of AI technology and “digital footprint”. With the rise of digital surveillance, it’s becoming clear how easily our autonomy is being stripped away, leaving our private information at risk. 

Conclusion:

As digital surveillance increases, it becomes more important than ever for us to be self-aware of our data and the breaches of our privacy. As mentioned by Foucault, systems of power use surveillance to control our bodies and population. These power structures want to silence our voices and limit our choices through surveillance and punishment. It’s crucial we acknowledge that these platforms that say they will protect our data are often taking hidden contracts that commodify our information, caring more about money than our safety. Although privacy issues around menstruation and immigration data occurred in the United States. These problems are not confined to only one country, as digital surveillance expands globally, and many countries are turning more conservative. This use of intimate data to control, silence, and discipline the masses is becoming normalized. It’s crucial as Media Studies students and users of the internet that we recognize the danger of surveillance. This topic is extremely important to us as media creators, as we are often using digital platforms to speak our minds. We must acknowledge that our art, our words, and our values may be surveilled and used against us. This is why we must take the time to analyze and consider the repercussions before passively saying “yes” to tracking or sharing data. We can only begin to resist these systems of oppression once we truly understand them and their consequences.

Works Cited: 

Balfour, Lindsay Anne. “Surveillance, Biopower, and Unsettling Intimacies in Reproductive Tracking Platforms.” TOPIA, vol. 48, 1 Mar. 2024, pp. 58–75, doi:10.3138/topia-2023-0025. 

Cisney, Vernon W., and Nicolae Morar. Biopower: Foucault and Beyond. The University of Chicago Press, 2016. Schwenk, Katya. “Ice Just Bought a Social Media Surveillance Bot.” The Lever, 21 Nov. 2025, www.levernews.com/ice-just-bought-a-social-media-surveillance-botice-just-bought-a-social-media-surveillance-bot/. Accessed 10 Dec. 2025.

Written by Aminata Chipembere

Other

Becoming Cultural Products: Digital Subcultures and the Culture Industry

5 Comments

A Critical Response to Molly Kingsley’s The (Not-So) Secret Double Lives of Mormon Wives: Digital Subcultures on Reality Television”

Introduction:

In the post The (Not-So) Secret Double Lives of Mormon Wives, media theorist Molly Kingsley examines the intersectionality of reality television, digital subculture, and the commercialization of social media through the niche digital community “MomTok.” This community is centered around a group of young Mormon mothers whose popularity leads to a Hulu series, The Secret Lives of Mormon Wives. Kingsley argues that MomTok demonstrates how digital subcultures often form around central figures who guide the community’s interests and social norms. She discusses how digital subcultures often lose meaning due to being susceptible to external commercial pressures. Although these subcultures often begin as a space of identity and representation, their visibility on digital platforms is easily manipulated by monetization, performativity, and the demands of the culture industry. Kingsley’s argument provides a strong foundation for understanding how the authenticity of social media slowly dissipates due to commoditization. Building on her analysis, I plan to expand this discussion through the theoretical frameworks of Jenna Drenten’s “Curating a Consumption Ideology” and Max Horkheimer and Theodor Adorno’s theory of the culture industry. Together, these theories demonstrate that MomTok, Reality Television, and influencers not only participate in systems of commercialization but ultimately become cultural products of the system itself.

Platformization, Performativity, and Consumption Ideology 

Kingsley discusses the performativity of MomTok, highlighting how influencers construct digital identities for public visibility.  This topic becomes more significant when examined through Drenten’s framework of platformization. She describes platformization as the “penetration of infrastructures, economic processes and governmental frameworks of digital platforms in different economic sectors and spheres of life, as well as the reorganization of cultural practices and imaginations around these platforms” (93). This means that digital platforms reshape cultural production by interweaving themselves in social and economic life. Platformization alters how cultural goods are created and monetized. This is made evident by influencers altering their identities to fit within the economic structures of the platform. Within Momtok and “The Secret Lives of Mormon Wives,” influencers commercialize most aspects of their lives. These digital subcultures thrive on mindful curation of their personal branding to maximize platform revenue. This curation encourages audiences to adopt the consumption ideologies ingrained within these platforms. An ideology that normalizes the purchasing products and adopting lifestyles glamorized by influencers, while fueling envy among their audience.

As discussed by Kingsley, reality television intensifies the performativity of influencers. This is evident with the popular MomTok Influencers transitioning from TikTok to Hulu, entering them into a larger, more commodified platform that thrives on drama, conflict, and controversy. Through reality television, these influencers become the cultural product being consumed, as every view, every tweet works to push their careers. This shift allowed the members to reach a wider audience meanwhile further integrating themselves into a capitalistic system that benefits from emotional vulnerability and spectacle. Drenten reminds the audience that social media influencers often overlook the negative outcomes of pushing controversial forms of consumption. As the digital landscape advances controversies, scandals, and dramas have become economic goldmines. Influencers are becoming the very products that social media uses to push capitalist ideals. Their lived experiences are shaped into media commodities whose purpose no longer serves storytelling but rather promotional content aimed to generate monetary value. ​

Reality Television & The Culture Industry

When examined through the framework of Max Horkheimer and Theodor Adorno’s The Culture Industry, the commodification of influencers becomes apparent. Horkheimer and Adorno argue that under capitalism, cultural products become standardized commodities designed for mass consumption. They highlight the intersectionality of labor and entertainment, demonstrating how mass media advances structures of power. Instead of creating social change and critical thinking, the culture industry produces mass media that pushes ideologies of consumption and promotes false realities. Although this theory predates social media, it remains relevant with influencer culture and reality tv. This is evident with the influencers of MomTok becoming cultural products. Their identities, family lives, and moral dilemmas are turned into viral content aimed at attracting views and sponsorship. Their lives become packaged and mass-produced for the audience’s consumption, blurring the lines between authenticity and performativity. Although these influencers might seem genuine on screen, their personalities are being manufactured to bring fame and visibility to their shows. This ultimately reduces them to commodities of the entertainment industry. This mirrors the culture industry’s process of creating seemingly unique and innovative content that in reality is shaped by industry norms. In the Secret Lives of Mormon Wives, the members are exchanging privacy and agency for profit. The influencers and the audience become embedded in a system that focuses on controversy and consumption over authenticity or critical reflection.

Conclusion

Kingsley’s argument sparked an interesting conversation on the instability of digital subcultures when confronted by capitalism. The shift from MomTok to reality television demonstrates how digital subcultures can be easily exploited by commercialization. What began as a niche community of self-expression discussing Mormonism, femininity, and gender roles easily became a place of controversy. The reality show ultimately worked to undo the curated family-friendly “personas” crafted by the influencers. In favor of shocking, dramatized “personas” that are more profitable to producers and the entertainment industry. 

When viewed through the framework of Drenten, Horkheimer, and Adorno, it’s apparent that these subcultures not only lose meaning but become platforms of pushing ideologies of consumptions. The influencers of Momtok are not merely participating in the culture industry. They are culture products themselves, with their identities being curated, monetized, and mass consumed. Their lives are entertainment commodities that are displayed for the audience’s enjoyment. The Secret Lives of Mormon Wives serves as an example of how digital subcultures work as part of the culture industry, promoting unrealistic desires and controversial ideologies. As Media Studies students, it’s important that we acknowledge the systems at play and learn not to take social media at face value. We must understand that digital platforms can be places of social change and critical thought if used correctly. If we fall victim to commercialization, we can easily lose the core values of these digital communities. Momtok and its journey into reality television demonstrate the intersection of social media, platformization, and the culture industry.

Works Cited

Drenten, Jenna, et al. “Curating a consumption ideology: Platformization and gun influencers on Instagram.” Marketing Theory, vol. 24, no. 1, 10 Oct. 2023, pp. 91–122, https://doi.org/10.1177/14705931231207329. 

Horkheimer , Max, and Theodor Adorno. “The culture industry: Enlightenment as mass deception.” Dialectic of Enlightenment, 31 Dec. 2020, pp. 94–136, https://doi.org/10.1515/9780804788090-007. 

Kingsley, Molly. “The (Not-So) Secret Double Lives of Mormon Wives: Digital Subcultures on Reality Television” UBC Blogs, 22 Nov. 2025, https://blogs.ubc.ca/mdia300/archives/901

The Secret Lives of Mormon Wives, by Jeff Jenkins, Jeff Jenkins Productions, 2024. Hulu, www.disneyplus.com.

Written by Aminata Chipembere

Image created by Aminata Chipembere

Book Review

Digital Black Feminism: Media, Embodiment & Resistance

3 Comments

Introduction

Catherine Steele’s book, Digital Black Feminism, is an exploration of critical issues surrounding race and media in modern media theory. It was published in October 2021, at the height of the #BlackLivesMatter movement. The book highlights Steele’s expertise as a scholar of race, gender, and media. Steele is an Associate Professor of Communication at the University of Maryland, where she runs the Black Communication and Technology (BCaT) lab. Her scholarship focuses on how marginalized communities have resisted oppression through digital technologies. Her book came at a crucial time, in a moment in which social media activism was at its peak, renewing attention to racial justice and the politics of technology. 

Steele’s book reframes how scholars understand the intersection between race, media, and politics. It highlights the essential contributions of Black women to the media landscape while acknowledging the lack of recognition of their revolutionary innovations due to their positionality. Steele analyzes Black women’s use of the internet as a tool of recognition, activism, and survival. This work reminds us that the media is never neutral; it’s inherently political, often working to silence already marginalized voices. A central theme is acknowledging how Black women have been fighting against these political systems that surveil and constrain users due to racial and gender bias. Steele argues that Digital Black feminism works to repurpose these systems that have historically marginalized them. She states that Black women have long used media as spaces of community, extending a lineage of traditional Black feminism that predates the internet as a way to remain visible and represented in a world that wants to do the opposite.

This book report examines how Black Digital Feminism works to redefine media theory through connections to representation, politics, embodiment. By drawing on theories introduced by Grant Bollmer’s Materialist Media Theory, Simone Browne’s work Dark Matters: On Surveillance of Blackness, Safiya Noble’s Algorithms of Oppression, and Mark Hansen’s Bodies in Code. This work acts as a bridge to connecting themes raised in Steele’s work and broader media studies theories. As Media Studies students, Steele’s book reminds us to analyze systems of power and oppression. She invites the reader to take a look at who is seen, who is silenced, and how marginalized communities reimagine the world of technology.

Overview of the Book

Steele’s Digital Black Feminism explores how Black feminist thought intersects with digital technology. Steele centers Black women’s voices and highlights how their use of technology is rooted in a long history of resisting oppression. In the first chapter, she discusses how technology shaped Black women’s lives during slavery, touching on oral culture, forced labor, and communication between worlds. Steele argues that Digital Black Feminism is a “political choice that bolsters the claim that feminism practiced without adherence to racial practices is not feminism at all”(18). She warns against analyzing technology through a “colorblind” lens, as that perpetuates more oppression, ignoring the harassment Black women face online. Steele emphasizes the need to recognize Black women’s foundational roles in feminist and civil rights movements, and urges readers to approach Digital Black Feminism with awareness of its historical and political context.

In the next chapter, Steele introduces the “virtual beauty shop” as a metaphor for Black feminism in digital spaces. She describes the virtual beauty shop as a constructed space for Black women. As beauty salons have been safe havens for the Black community, Steele shows how Black women are extending these safe spaces online through conversations about hair care. In the next three chapters, she connects this idea to the work of historic Black feminist icons and argues that social media has become a powerful tool for continuing their legacy. Steele challenges stereotypes that erase Black women from technology, showing how activities like blogging, hair tutorials, and Black Twitter contribute to knowledge, resistance, and academic discourse. She argues that Digital Black Feminism broadens the idea of scholarship, making theory more accessible. This book reframes the media not as a neutral technology but as a political space that is tied to history, empowerment and resistance. 

Media and Representation

Catherine Steele’s arguments in this book bring forward key ideas about media and power, and representations that align with the central themes of our course. Steele reminds the audience of the importance of Black women creators in the digital landscape, highlighting them as voices for their community and figures of representation. This resonates with Grant Bollmer’s discussion in Materialist Media Theory, where he argues that representation is essential to the politics of media, since it works to determine whose voices are heard and whose are erased. He highlights that the silencing of marginalized people is not simply an oversight but a tactic of political erasure. As representation in the media is a symbol of power, lack of visibility works to restrict political action. Steele’s analysis grounds this theory, as the harassment of Black women online, censorship, and algorithmic bias demonstrate how digital platforms function to discipline and silence marginalized users, limiting their participation in public discourse.

However, through Steele’s work, she demonstrates how Black feminists are actively defying these systems of power. The Digital Black Feminist movement emerges as a countermeasure to this silencing, transforming exclusion into a space for community. Through social media, digital storytelling, and activism, Black women are creating a space of affirmation and political critique that challenges the social hierarchies embedded in the media. This movement correlates with Bollmer’s ideas that the politics of representation lies not only in obtaining visibility but having control within these systems in order to change them. Steele reminds us that when Black women organize and create online, they are not simply using media but remaking it, pushing back against the very systems that aim to silence them. 

Media Politics & Surveillance

Steele’s discussions on representation and empowerment directly connect to ideas on media politics and surveillance explored in class and broader media scholarship. In discussions on mass media, it was emphasized that the media is centered around and controlled by institutions of power. Steele’s Digital Black Feminism, alongside theories by Simone Browne and Safiya Noble, exposes how media is inherently political, reproducing racial hierarchies through surveillance and algorithmic bias. Browne’s Dark Matters: On the Surveillance of Blackness traces how the system of racialized surveillance is rooted in slavery and colonialism. She argues that racialized surveillance is “a technology of social control where surveillance practices, policies, and performances concern the production of norms pertaining to race and a power to define what is in or out of place” (Browne 77). These practices are reproduced in digital forms through tracking, data collection, and targeted harassment. These systems of power aim to control Black voices by supervising their interactions with the media. 

This is prevalent in Steele’s work as she discusses how targeted harassment and “algorithms of oppression,” a concept introduced by Noble, work to push Black women off digital platforms. Safiya Noble’s Algorithms of Oppression highlights how search engines and digital infrastructures are encoded with racial bias that pushes anti-Black rhetoric. She provides an example of how Google’s photo application automatically “tagged African Americans as “apes” and “animals” (Noble 6). This is just one example of the hundreds of “accidental” algorithmic incidents of racism. These algorithms aim to control and discourage Black users rather than allowing them to speak their truths. Steele extends this analysis by discussing how this surveillance works to hide Black presence, allowing their scholarship to be drowned out by harassment or go unnoticed. It’s important to acknowledge that race impacts a person’s experience on the internet and that colorblind view on media politics does more harm than good. 

Critical Reflection & Possibilities

Steele’s work highlights the blind spots that theorists often overlook when discussing race and technology. It offers more than a case study; it introduces a movement.  Theory is often influenced by embodied experiences. As introduced by Mark Hansen in Bodies in Code, media is an extension of the body that shapes perception and experiences. Hansen suggests that digital media makes the body the site of mediation, closing the distinction between human and technological experience. This reminds us that Digital Black Feminism is more than just a theoretical framework; it’s a lived experience. For Black women, embodiment in digital spaces is not evenly distributed. It’s important we acknowledge that the Black body is both hypervisible and surveilled.

However, after reading Steele’s argument, I was left with questions about Digital Black  Feminism and the limitations of her discussions. As an Afro-Latina media scholar, I noticed that Steele’s argument was largely grounded in a U.S. context. This focus allows her to speak on her positionality and the rich history between the African American slave experience and modern media practices. However, it is also a limitation. It left me wondering about the exploration of African, Caribbean, and Black diasporic lenses. Black Feminist media practices are at play globally, often interacting with colonial legacies and political oppression. A diasporic lens would work to extend ideas of surveillance, representation, and algorithmic bias. With the current state of the political world, I feel like analyzing the power of Digital Black Feminism and media politics in places like Sudan and Congo, which are suffering from extreme oppression and humanitarian crises, would provide another larger, inclusive perspective. Looking at Digital Black Feminism from a global lens would help root her claims as a universal Black experience rather than just through an American context, since it is bigger than just the USA. Given this, I would be interested in further analyzing Grant Bollmer’s ideas on geopolitics and colonial power influencing the media. 

Conclusion

Catherine Steele’s Digital Black Feminism transforms how we understand media, politics, and representation. By connecting digital culture with the long history of Black feminist communication, Steele demonstrates that media is both an agent of control and a tool for resistance. When read alongside Bollmer’s ideas on representation, Browne’s theory of surveillance, Noble’s work on algorithmic bias, and Hansen’s discussions on embodiment, it is evident that the media is deeply political and a lived experience. For Media Studies students, Steele’s book challenges us to reevaluate our ideas on media by making the reality of Black women media users present and visible. It warns us that the media is tied to systems of power that often work to hinder marginalized voices. Steele does suggest that if used with intention, it can work to create a safe haven of community and creativity. Ultimately, Steele’s work insists that the study of Black Digital Feminism should be seen as a study of liberation (as with her example of the virtual beauty salon), showing how marginalized communities can not only survive within the political systems but transform them into a space of joy and resistance. 

Written by: Aminata Chipembere

Works Cited

Bollmer, Grant. Materialist Media Theory: An Introduction. Bloomsbury Academic, 2019. 

Browne, Simone. Dark Matters: On the Surveillance of Blackness. Duke University Press, 2015. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv11cw89p. Accessed 10 Nov. 2025.

Hansen, M. B. N. Bodies in Code: Interfaces with New Media. Routledge, 2006.

Noble, Safiya Umoja. Algorithms of Oppression: How Search Engines Reinforce Racism. NYU Press, 2018. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctt1pwt9w5. Accessed 9 Nov. 2025.
Steele, Catherine Knight. Digital Black Feminism. New York University Press, 2021.

Other

Tim Ingold: Making, Materiality & Media Studies

1 Comment

Introduction

In Tim Ingold’s book, Making: Anthropology, Archaeology, Art and Architecture, he rethinks what it means to create. He re-evaluates ideas around anthropology and ethnography, arguing against the idea that concepts can be theorized in isolation from the world around us. He states that we don’t obtain knowledge by being a bystander; we learn because we interact with the world we experience. Ingold points out that making is a process of correspondence between human beings and the materials they work with. To make is not to impose onto a subject but to join forces with things already at work. This shift from passive observation to participation has a major implication on how we understand knowledge, materiality and creation. Reading Ingold alongside our course discussion on Materiality by Bill Brown and ideas proposed by Sherry Turkle’s Evocative Objects, reveals to us that making is not just a practical activity but a way of knowing and learning about the world. 

Making

Ingold introduces the idea that materials are alive. He argues that they are not innate objects waiting for human design, but rather that they are active participants in the processes of creation. The material in use shapes the maker’s actions and the outcome of the piece. The maker does not simply use these raw substances but works with them to bring out their potential. Ingold calls this “thinking through making” (2), arguing that the hand and mind work together to create something new. Ingold connects his ideas to Derrida’s Memoirs of the Blind. He uses Derrida’s ideas to back up his claim that making is exploratory; it’s an act of discovery rather than something guided by preconceived images in the mind. 

This view contrasts with a concept Ingold introduces called the hylomorphic model, a long-standing Western idea that imposes form onto materials. This model assumes that the form of an object originates in the mind and then is transferred into the material. This theory is reliant on the concept that a maker designs an “outline” for a creation and then proceeds to mould the material to their liking. Ingold argues that this model forgets to acknowledge that the materials themselves impact the final product.

Materiality

This idea of a symbiotic relationship between maker and material heavily connects to ideas about materiality introduced by Bill Brown, which have been central in our course. Bill Brown states that materials go past physicality; they impact how we experience life and mediate our senses. This concept is reflected in Ingold’s work as he argues that the concept of materiality has become too detached from the actual substance. We often focus on the physicality of an object rather than how it engages and shapes our experiences. Ingold views materiality as an embodied, relational practice rather than just a theoretical term. This is important to media studies, as artists, we usually approach creation with a predetermined plan of how we want to manipulate the materials. We forget to learn from the process of making and that the outcomes will never fully go to plan. Ingold’s work reminds us to embrace the challenges and nuance that come with making, rather than being too consumed by the “design” we want to execute. 

Ingold’s perspective on materials being alive and impacting our experiences aligns with the ideas present in Sherry Turkle’s Evocative Objects. Turkle’s work teaches us that objects are not merely things but mediators of thoughts and feelings. This connects to Ingold’s idea that materials impact our process of creation. Materials are mediators, as we gain knowledge from interacting with them. Both Turkle and Ingold remind us of the power of materiality and how it shapes our knowledge. 

Knowledge & Learning

Tim Ingold’s emphasis on process and correspondence also provides us with a new perspective on knowledge and learning. In this class, we discussed how knowledge is stored and transmitted in different forms. This is especially seen in the documentary on Umberto Eco, A Library of the World. He describes the library as more than just a collection of books but as a living being that changes as humans grow and evolve. This idea ties into Ingold’s reflections that knowledge is gained by participating rather than watching from the sidelines. Umberto Eco’s ideas about engaging with physical materials, such as books, through writing and directly interacting with them, connect to Ingold’s arguments on how knowledge comes from engaging with materials. Both thinkers remind us that knowledge is often connected to the materials that sustain it. 

Ingold highlights that knowledge is an embodied skill that comes from paying attention. He reiterates that we learn in the process of doing. He states that knowledge is “a process of active following, of going along”(12). He reminds us that furthering our knowledge does not solely depend on documentation, but that we learn by watching and working alongside the subject. This idea directly connects to discussions we’ve had in class. In Media Studies, we are taught to further our knowledge through reading, documentation and creation. These various skills are what allow us to expand our perspectives as we can learn through consuming other works and through creating our own. Ingold’s work reminds us that being makers or artists is not simply repeating others’ ideas, but learning from those ideas and bettering ourselves through the process of making our own art. 

Conclusion

Ingold’s Making invites us to rethink what it means to know. He reminds us that knowledge is not simply something we gain but something we do. His theories teach us, as makers, that we can learn through the process of creation. This work serves as a lesson to us. In Media Studies, we are often more concerned about our designs or plans rather than truly enjoying the process of making. He reminds us that we don’t have complete power over the outcomes of a piece, so it’s better to embrace that uncertainty rather than fight it. As makers, we must create a relationship between ourselves and the materials, as they have agency in our work. Materials mediate our experiences, leaving traces that should not be forgotten but celebrated. This book reminds us that Media Studies is about more than theory; it’s about learning through the process of doing. 

Citations: 

Brown, Bill. “Materiality.” Critical Terms for Media Studies, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, Illinois, 2010. 

Derrida, Jacques. Memoirs of the Blind: The Self-Portrait and Other Ruins. University of Chicago Press, 1993.

Ingold, Tim. Making: Anthropology, Archaeology, Art and Architecture. Routledge, 2013. 

Turkle, Sherry. Evocative Objects: Things We Think With, MIT Press, 2007.

Umberto Eco: La biblioteca del mondo. Directed by Davide Ferrario, 2018.

By Aminata Chipembere

Other

Jacques Derrida and Tim Ingold: Making Through Blindness

Image of Jacques Derrida

Introduction

What does sight and hand inform us about making? Through Jacques Derrida’s own theories regarding our use of sight and hand, Ingold supports his own arguments while also challenging Derrida via his book Memoirs of the Blind: The Self-Portrait and Other Ruins. Throughout this work, we will analyze how Derrida’s philosophies on sight (and its contrast with blindness) alongside the hand (and drawing with it) has been cited to articulate its importance in making as argued by Ingold.

Derrida’s Background

Derrida is a French philosopher whose works involve theories regarding the humanities, which we have seen references of in class through the language and writing chapters of Critical Terms for Media Studies. With his background in philosophy, he puts forward his thesis with terms such as “deconstruction,” where he analyzes the flawed nature of Western philosophy and viewing concepts in opposition (e.g. culture and nature, speech and writing, mind and body, etc.). This sort of “deconstruction” of seemingly oppositional ideas is what will inform Derrida’s arguments, as we will see in his analysis of “sight and blindness” as well as “drawing and the hand” (“Jacques Derrida”). 

Sight, Blindness, and Weeping

Derrida’s hypothesis of sight postulates that it is “always set on convincing you” and is the “grafting of one point of view onto another”(2). Through this hypothesis, the definitions of blindness and sight develop ambiguity. Sight is both what we believe to be true, and an imparting of our personal perspective onto another, influencing them with our interpretation. Derrida discusses the space of blind as one that conjugates the “tenses and times of memory”: foreseeing “there where they do not see, no longer see, or do not yet see”(5, 6). Ingold furthers this temporal approach to considering sight when he describes it as “an activity of seeing forward” and a way to stay one step ahead of the material (69).

While Derrida’s discussion of sight concerns itself more with the metaphysical, distinguishing between “believing [what one sees], and seeing between” and explaining that the root of skepsis lies in the eyes and visual perception, Ingold applies his concepts to the process of making (Derrida 2). Ingold discusses drawing as a way to “look back on lines already drawn” to open our eyes, effectively making ourselves the “master of truth… who sees and guides the other towards the spiritual light” as Derrida describes it (Ingold 131, Derrida 6).

Derrida’s study of blindness eventually expands to a discussion of the eye itself. He defines eyes as the essence of the man and, as Ingold cites, its ultimate destiny is “not to see but to weep”(Derrida 125, Ingold 111). As such, the eye simultaneously veils sight and reveals the truth of the eyes (Derrida 126). In essence, the eye’s truth and what they observe is revealed as the world is covered, allowing a person to properly digest what they have seen. 

Similar to how Ingold claims technology is what separates humans from animals, Derrida differentiates between us in that we are the only ones who weep as an emotional response (126). Through weeping, humans “go beyond seeing and knowing”, using our eyes in both functions of telling: we understand the world around us through sight, and can convey our emotions through weeping (Derrida 126). Though we can not effectively observe our surroundings and openly weep congruently, Derrida’s emphasis on this dual use for eyes opposes Ingold’s theories of the individuality of the hand. However, Ingold stresses that the hand is distinct as it combines both aspects of telling, effectively clarifying any argument potential.

Drawing and the Hand

In Memoirs of the Blind, Jacques Derrida argues that “drawing is blind” (2) and that the act of drawing is dependent on blindness. To Derrida, drawing is an anticipating act, predicting what is to come. He describes how the hand moves across a surface before the eye can register what is being inscribed. He sees this process as taking initiative or “to take (capere) in advance (ante)”(4). The moment in which the artist first makes the first trace (trait), they are opening the path to invention. This trace is neither visible nor predetermined by what is already present. Even if there’s a model in front of an artist, the outcome is not predetermined. As there’s always a gap between the subject and the drawing, no matter how similar the deception of the subject is, a distance always remains.

As someone draws, their hands move ahead of their sight, meaning that they cannot see the entire line until it unfolds on the page. He argues that drawing “escapes the field of vision”(45) and rejects spectacular objectivity, which is the realm of everything visible and knowable. Derrida critiques the West’s dependence on this spectacle, holding onto the idea that vision provides truth. Drawing lives outside of this spectacle, as it goes against the idea that sight is all-encompassing, as it’s not a reproduction of what’s seen, because it occurs outside of visibility. Derrida’s overarching argument is that drawing is a process of touch, memory, and invention that isn’t beholden to vision.

Building on Derrida’s work, Tim Ingold’s Making reinforces his argument that making is a process of discovery rather than something representative. He rethinks the relation between drawing and writing, emphasizing that both originate from the hand, which he says works to tell the stories of the world. The hand is active as it probes and caresses; these actions precede visions and representation. In accordance with Derrida, Ingold argues that a mark is not in the realm of visibility but a lived movement: the practice of making. To Derrida, vision is haunted by blindness, but Ingold sees this haunting as fundamental to creativity. He sees the separation of sight and drawing as something that hinders how intertwined touch, memory, and perception actually are.

Conclusion

As media theorists, both Ingold and Derrida pose crucial questions and ideas that pertain to our relationship with the media. Much like drawing, when we produce media, there is a sense of “blindness” where we are obfuscated by the process of production itself. The notion that creating as a process is seen in both Derrida and Ingold’s arguments, where we see them discuss products as an unfinished, ongoing process. Ingold uses Derrida’s work to reinforce his main argument that making is a correspondence between the maker and the material. Both scholars argue that making is not a process determined by preconceived notions of reality but rather a relation between body and material. However, Derrida highlights this through his philosophies on the hand and blindness, revealing that the artist “creates or makes” without full knowledge of what will be the outcome. Ingold builds on this perspective and focuses on materiality. He describes the lived experience of making and how the maker and material are constantly working with one another. Just with the artefacts and buildings that Ingold puts forth his analyses on, media, too, are unfinished products constantly being reshaped with what is unseen (blind) as well as the hands that create them under new contexts. We see this often with how media are constantly edited, adapted into different forms of media, and also recontextualized under new perspectives. As academics, understanding each medium, not as its own standalone finished project, but in a perpetual state of change, is what guides us and our studies in the media landscape.

Citations

Britannica Editors. “Jacques Derrida”. Encyclopedia Britannica, 4 Oct. 2025, https://www.britannica.com/biography/Jacques-Derrida. Accessed 17 October 2025.

Derrida, Jacques. Memoirs of the Blind: The Self-Portrait and Other Ruins. University of Chicago Press, 1993. 

Ingold, Tim. Making: Anthropology, Archaeology, Art and Architecture. Routledge, 2013. 

Written by:

Molly Kingsley, Christine Choi, Aminata Chipembere