viz.

Image via TripAdvisor

As the first big travel week of the holiday season approaches, there has been much discussion about the TSA’s new body scanners and “enhanced pat downs.” There is a lot to be said about both the scanners themselves and the images that comment on the controversy, so in this post I will highlight some points of interest to inspire discussion about conceptions of the gaze and uses of the image.

The TSA’s “advanced imaging technology” is now in 68 airports nationwide, including Washington Dulles, John F. Kennedy, LaGuardia, Los Angeles International, Chicago O’Hare and Boston Logan. The procedure has clearly been designed to counter privacy objections; a remote officer views the image, so he/she cannot match passenger to body scan. But for some, the very act of entering a scanner that produces this image is invasive. The gaze that assaults these travelers is disembodied and mechanical—not literally the same as, for example, an officer “touching your junk”—but it retains the invasive quality of a willful human gaze. It is, of course, a willful institutional gaze, which can feel equally if not more threatening; it makes the argument that individuals can be told to expose their bodies, even when those individuals are not under any particular suspicion.

The use of images to comment on the new security procedures is particularly interesting. FlyWithDignity.org uses provocative images in its ads to cover a variety of objections. While only one addresses body scans, it is especially creative:

Image: FlyWithDignity.org

Their other images illustrate objections to the enhanced pat downs. Both show women who appear traumatized by the invasive reach of gloved hands.

The use of only women in these images makes a potentially problematic argument, but one that could persuade a wide audience through an obvious allusion to sexual assault and trauma.

One last visual argument uses Xtranormal, which Ashley discussed in a recent blog post, to construct an argument against the TSA's new procedures. While I find videos made with Xtranormal basically unwatchable (in spite of my love for robot voices), this one provides an interesting contrast to the images above. The robot voices and limited gestural capabilities of the animated figures contrast with the very real emotions and bodies involved. This format can draw attention to issues of privacy and trauma without sensationalizing, which could be useful in a debate that can easily devolve into accusations of oversensitivity. Additionally, while I find the computer voices maddening, that irritation could be, in part, a positive rhetorical effect, since the video portrays a frustratingly hopeless conversation.