In the (Female) Mind’s Eye: Regarding Pain

By Morris Freedman

Published July 25, 2003, issue of July 25, 2003.
  • Print
  • Share Share

Regarding the Pain of Others

By Susan Sontag

Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 131 pages, $20.

* * *

Lately, we have come to expect war photography as unassailably accurate and objective as the news with which it is featured, as unslanted as its accompanying text. A photographer of the recent war in Iraq was fired after he combined two busy pictures to create one clear one, charged with manipulating the news. Yet, as Susan Sontag recounts in “Regarding the Pain of Others,” a history of how the camera has reported war and associated horrors from the 19th century to the last decade of the 20th, famous photographers throughout history contrived their pictures — including the raising of the flag on Iwo Jima as well as Matthew Brady’s Civil and Crimean War shots.

Significantly, the book includes not one picture, as though the photographs Sontag so meticulously describes might distort, color or unbalance her rational, intellectual response to them. Indeed, although she has produced novels, plays and movies, Sontag is preeminently a critic of our culture, an essayist whose most influential work has been to interpret social phenomena. Without disseminating any narrowly focused, doctrinaire ideology, she belongs with other pioneering literary women in English and American literature such as Jane Austen, George Eliot, Virginia Woolf, Mary McCarthy, Cynthia Ozick and Grace Paley. All of these, and others like them, have opened vistas hitherto obscured in various ways. A bold, confident, cooly attentive vision, a broad tolerance, a capacity for direct unvarnished statement characterize all. For all their skill in observation and writing, even their greater male contemporaries generally fail to give us the same worlds.

As though to emphasize her consciousness of her own place in this pantheon, Sontag begins her latest essay by referring to Woolf’s distinction between the ways men and women regard war. “Men make war,” she writes. “Men (most men) like war, since for men there is ‘some glory, some necessity, some satisfaction in fighting’ that women (most women) do not feel or enjoy.” Sontag says that Woolf lets “subside” her intimation that men and women — “we” — can ever regard war similarly. “No ‘we,’” writes Sontag, “should be taken for granted when the subject is looking at other people’s pain.”

It is this special, unapologetic, entirely open view on which Sontag elaborates. It offers all readers a landscape too often neglected or blurred, in whole or in part. Very explicitly, Sontag brings to her examination of suffering the sympathy and empathy of a woman, a wife, a mother, a creative nurturer. Inevitably, one recalls the distinction, made without caricature by Jerry Seinfeld, between a man’s and a woman’s use of a remote control: Men, who restlessly surf the television screen, hunt; women, who stick to one program, nest. Nothing necessarily wrong with either, of course, but each finds somewhat different satisfactions that the other may slight. The nurturing woman essentially identifies with every victim but also senses, apprehends, acknowledges the ultimately incomprehensible impulses of those inflicting pain, thus assimilating in her vision the total universe in which pain occurs.

Only in the last portion of her thoughtful, careful and patient survey of photography’s presentation and implicit “interpretation” of horrors does Sontag fully engage with how photographs enable us to feel more deeply, understand more sensitively, think more knowledgeably and relate more personally to the awful experiences of others. However powerful a response a photograph may evoke by capturing a fleeting scene, it cannot provide, as words can, the full context of the history and rumination in which the shot is embedded, which only an analytical and sensitive observer — like Sontag — can add.

It is felt that there is something morally wrong with the abstract of reality offered by photography; that one has no right to experience the suffering of others at a distance, denuded of its raw power; that we pay too high a human (or moral) price for those hitherto admired qualities of vision — the standing back from the aggressiveness of the world which frees us for observation and for elective attention. But this is only to describe the function of the mind itself.There’s nothing wrong with standing back and thinking. To paraphrase several sages: “Nobody can think and hit someone at the same time.”

Morris Freedman’s essays and reviews have appeared in Commentary, the American Scholar and other publications. He teaches at the University of Maryland.






Find us on Facebook!
  • We try to show things that get less exposed to the public here. We don’t look to document things that are nice or that people would like. We don’t try to show this place as a beautiful place.”
  • A new Gallup poll shows that only 25% of Americans under 35 support the war in #Gaza. Does this statistic worry you?
  • “You will stomp us into the dirt,” is how her mother responded to Anya Ulinich’s new tragicomic graphic novel. Paul Berger has a more open view of ‘Lena Finkle’s Magic Barrel." What do you think?
  • PHOTOS: Hundreds of protesters marched through lower Manhattan yesterday demanding an end to American support for Israel’s operation in #Gaza.
  • Does #Hamas have to lose for there to be peace? Read the latest analysis by J.J. Goldberg.
  • This is what the rockets over Israel and Gaza look like from space:
  • "Israel should not let captives languish or corpses rot. It should do everything in its power to recover people and bodies. Jewish law places a premium on pidyon shvuyim, “the redemption of captives,” and proper burial. But not when the price will lead to more death and more kidnappings." Do you agree?
  • Slate.com's Allison Benedikt wrote that Taglit-Birthright Israel is partly to blame for the death of American IDF volunteer Max Steinberg. This is why she's wrong:
  • Israeli soldiers want you to buy them socks. And snacks. And backpacks. And underwear. And pizza. So claim dozens of fundraising campaigns launched by American Jewish and Israeli charities since the start of the current wave of crisis and conflict in Israel and Gaza.
  • The sign reads: “Dogs are allowed in this establishment but Zionists are not under any circumstances.”
  • Is Twitter Israel's new worst enemy?
  • More than 50 former Israeli soldiers have refused to serve in the current ground operation in #Gaza.
  • "My wife and I are both half-Jewish. Both of us very much felt and feel American first and Jewish second. We are currently debating whether we should send our daughter to a Jewish pre-K and kindergarten program or to a public one. Pros? Give her a Jewish community and identity that she could build on throughout her life. Cons? Costs a lot of money; She will enter school with the idea that being Jewish makes her different somehow instead of something that you do after or in addition to regular school. Maybe a Shabbat sing-along would be enough?"
  • Undeterred by the conflict, 24 Jews participated in the first ever Jewish National Fund— JDate singles trip to Israel. Translation: Jews age 30 to 45 travelled to Israel to get it on in the sun, with a side of hummus.
  • "It pains and shocks me to say this, but here goes: My father was right all along. He always told me, as I spouted liberal talking points at the Shabbos table and challenged his hawkish views on Israel and the Palestinians to his unending chagrin, that I would one day change my tune." Have you had a similar experience?
  • from-cache

Would you like to receive updates about new stories?




















We will not share your e-mail address or other personal information.

Already subscribed? Manage your subscription.