Alexandra Giroux

Interviews réalisés pour Nancybynight

Nancybynight : Un mot pour décrire l’ambiance du JDM ?
Fils de Teuhpu : “Téléphone”. Non, “bénévole”
Lady brings bad news : Fantasmagorique
Nagas : Trois mots : “énorme”, “puissant”, “convivialité”
Mell : Grouillante
Têtard : Orageux, au sens propre comme au sens figuré
Eiffel : Pluvieux mais chaleureux
Caméléons : Convivial
DJ La Teuf : Sympa
Madsheerkhan : Humain
NH24 : Super
Rachid Wallas : Roots
Eddy la Gooyatsh : Rustique

NbN : Vous donnez la palme d’or à quel groupe ce soir ?
Fils de Teuhpu : Percubaba. Ils étaient là l’année dernière et étaient meilleurs que Raphaël.
Lady brings bad news : Percubaba car on n’a entendu qu’eux.
Nagas : Eiffel est notre favori.
Mell : J’attends de voir Higelin !
Têtard : Têtard
Eiffel : Higelin
Caméléons : Higelin et on est curieux de voir Eiffel.
DJ La Teuf : Eiffel
Madsheerkhan : C’est trop difficile de répondre à une question comme ça.
NH24 : On n’a pas tout entendu mais Congo, c’était bien.
Rachid Wallas : Mell ! C’est sa fête aujourd’hui : c’est elle qui a fait la programmation.
Eddy la Gooyatsh : Rachid Wallas

NbN : Si on vous avais pris pour l’Eurovision, la France aurait gagné ?
Fils de Teuhpu : On ne l’aurait pas fait. Regardez le vote contestataire de l’année dernière. Boycott !
Lady brings bad news : Non. On aurais repris une chanson de David Hasselof ou des 2be3.
Nagas : Non, on est trop rock. On aurait peut être quand même fini mieux qu’avant-dernier. En fait, ce n’est pas vraiment notre état d’esprit donc on aurait sûrement refusé.
Mell : Bien sûr. J’aurais chanté nue de la variété de merde.
Têtard : Non. On n’a pas de masque. Le groupe doit être reconnaissable tout de suite. Nous, nous sommes comme une rencontre amoureuse : il faut apprendre à nous connaître. Un de nos plus grand fan est resté bloqué dans sa voiture 3 jours avec notre CD.
Eiffel : On aurait fait mieux que perdre : nous aurions obtenu -1 points. En réalité, nous ne l’aurions pas fait, même sous la torture.
Caméléons : On emmerde l’Eurovision.
DJ La Teuf : Non. J’aurais passé les Fatal Picards.
Madsheerkhan : Je ne l’aurais pas fait. L’eurovision, c’est du formatage…peut-être même dans le cas de Lordi… allez savoir.
NH24 : Oui car nous sommes originaux. Notre style est à part : nous en avons crée un. En France, musicalement, on a besoin de renouveau. Tout ce que nous faisons n’est pas préfabriqué. A la base du groupe, il y a l’amitié.
Rachid Wallas : Peut-être. On aurait tenté de faire mieux que ce qu’on a déjà vu pour avoir moins honte d’être français.
Eddy la Gooyatsh : Non. Une malédiction s’est abattue sur la France, elle ne gagnera jamais l’Eurovision.

NbN : Qu’est ce que vous auriez fait si on vous avait proposé de chanter la Marseillaise avec Mireille Mathieu pour Nicolas Sarkozy ?
Fils de Teuhpu : On aurait donné un coup de boule à Mireille Mathieu et on lui aurait fait un lifting. Cela aurait fini en partouze nationale. Vladimir Putain, Berluscobouigue, Sarkofiote, Sarkofoot !
Lady brings bad news : Il n’y aurait pas eu tout le groupe. On aurait sûrement changé les paroles en “allons enfants de Sarkozy”… Mais on préfère ne pas mélanger musique et politique.
Nagas : On n’a pas d’étiquette politique. Mais on aurait pu soutenir Mireille Mathieu pour autre chose. Dix mois d’armée, ça fait déjà chier donc ça suffit.
Mell : Je ne la connais pas.
Têtard : Non. Mais ce n’est pas pour Mireille : un des membres a la même coupe. On ne cherche pas à être politisé même si on a joué pour Amnesty International ou Act-up.
Eiffel : Non, mais pas à cause de Nicolas Sarkozy. On devrait dire qu’on vote UMP pour tout casser, ça serait drôle. Il y aurait des réactions sur les forums : “Eiffel vote Sarkozy”.
Caméléons : Non. On va rester polis… Ce soir on fait une dédicace à Sarkozy pendant notre concert.
DJ La Teuf : Non. Je chante faux et je ne suis ni fan de Mireille Mathieu, ni fan de Nicolas Sarkozy.
Madsheerkhan : Non mais j’aime bien Mireille Mathieu. Elle est gentille, elle dégage de la naïveté.
NH24 : Nous ne faisons pas de politique.
Rachid Wallas : Non. On est face à des bouffons du roi qui font allégeance. C’est ça la France d’après ?
Eddy la Gooyatsh : Non car je n’ai pas envie de chanter la marseillaise. Ce n’est pas que j’ai de l’animosité pour ma patrie mais je trouve que cette chanson n’est pas très jolie.

NbN : Qu’est ce que MySpace a changé pour vous ?
Fils de Teuhpu : Myspace c’est dégoûtant mais ça nous fait plein d’amis. Myspace c’est pour les célibataires et les groupes célibataires. Et aussi les mammifères.
Lady brings bad news : Cela a remplacé les sites persos et c’est plus facile à créer. C’est pratique pour la diffusion mais c’est un moule et on ne devrait pas voir ce site comme un outil de sondage.
Nagas : Rien. Ce sont des fans qui le gèrent. C’est notre vitrine.
Mell : J’ai plein d’amis. C’est pratique pour les contacts avec les salles. C’est aussi économique : le tourneur renvoie simplement les gens vers notre page plutôt que d’envoyer des CD. On peut contacter d’autres groupes, c’est pratique.
Têtard : C’est trop de travail ! On virtualise la virtualité. Mais l’avantage est la vitesse à laquelle on peut poster des vidéos ou des morceaux. En réalité, nous n’avons pas 3000 amis. Avec ce site, on découvre des groupes, on vend des skuds. C’est bien, c’est une sorte de gros flyer.
Eiffel : Pas grande chose. C’est plutôt utile pour les groupes qui commencent et qui sont en quête de visibilité. Myspace crée un réseau mais sinon, ce qui est intéressant, c’est plus le site.
Caméléons : Pas grande chose. Cela augmente notre visibilité. Les professionnels nous contactent plus via notre site. Mais c’est une manière de mettre à égalité tout un tas d’informations, sur une seule page.
DJ La Teuf : Cela prend du temps… Mais ça permet de découvrir des groupes.
Madsheerkhan : Je n’en ai pas et c’est un choix. Encore une fois, c’est du formatage. C’est l’Hôtel Hilton du net : où que tu sois, qui que tu sois, tu as la même chose.
NH24 : On contacte des personnes, des groupes. Tout est sur une page : ça permet de connaître le groupe en un clic.
Rachid Wallas : C’est assez utile. On fait des mises à jours aisément et ça facilite les contacts. Cela nous a permis de découvrir des artistes comme Jan Dark.
Eddy la Gooyatsh : J’ai plein d’amis. C’est aussi plus dynamique, plus immédiat. Il y a moins d’inertie. C’est moi qui m’en occupe et quand on fait une requête d’ajout en ami, je vais regarder les pages des autres.

NbN : Nous avons interviewé précédemment Clara Morgane. Que pensez vous de sa chanson “J’aime” ?
Fils de Teuhpu : Elle pourrait faire de la politique. Elle a voté Sarkozy on pense.
Lady brings bad news : Elle aurait du rester dans le X. On peut lui donner des cours de guitare. Pourquoi ils ne l’ont pas invitée au JDM ? Si on avais participé à l’Eurovision, on aurait repris sa chanson après réflexion.
Nagas : C’est bien, elle n’est pas ridicule. Mais elle aurait du continuer le porno où elle excellait. Quitte à ouvrir la bouche, autant qu’elle suce.
Mell : Je n’écoute pas NRJ.
Têtard : On a dit qu’on ne dirait pas qu’on n’aime pas les gens… C’est facile pour Clara Morgane de sortir un single… Mais que propose-t-elle artistiquement ?
Eiffel : On la connaît dans ses rôles au cinéma.
Caméléons : Elle aurait du rester dans le cinéma. Elle arrivait mieux.
DJ La Teuf : Je ne connais pas sa musique. Juste ses films.
Madsheerkhan : Je ne l’ai pas entendue.
NH24 : C’est trop nul. Elle n’a pas sa place dans la musique. Un jour, à Paris, dans un resto, on l’avait rencontrée. Mais c’est comme si une rock star faisait du porno, il ne faut pas tout mélanger.
Rachid Wallas : C’est de la merde mais son clip est bien. Elle a le droit de s’exprimer tout comme nous avons le droit de dire que ce n’est pas bien. Cette opportunité de chanter, elle l’a mais d’autres qui ont des choses à dire auraient aussi aimé l’avoir.
Eddy la Gooyatsh : Je ne connais pas mais ça doit être super.

NbN : Quelle est votre meilleure chanson pour faire l’amour ?
Fils de Teuhpu : “Barbelé” et “Toutes les parties de vous”. “Awalpé”, pour le tempo.
Lady brings bad news : Avec Clara ? “Regrets”.
Nagas : Est-ce que les gens ont déjà fait l’amour sur nos chansons ? On va dire “Le pacte des mots”.
Mell : Je ne répondrais pas une de mes chansons mais “Roses” de Zenzile.
Têtard : “L’air de rien”, sur le nouvel album ou alors “Grain de beauté”. Les chansons durent trois minutes, ça fait une minute pour fumer une clope.
Eiffel : “Tandori”.
Caméléons : “Seguine”.
DJ La Teuf : Il ne faut pas écouter de musique, ce n’est pas nécessaire, c’est comme quand tu lis.
Madsheerkhan : “Believe” car elle parle de l’investissement dans l’autre.
NH24 : Cela dépend comment on fait l’amour mais pourquoi pas “Pornstar” où nous parlons d’ailleurs de Clara Morgane.
Rachid Wallas : “Parano”. Ou alors un medley pour qu’il y ait des changements de rythme.
Eddy la Gooyatsh : Je n’ai pas fait l’amour depuis la séparation des Beatles.

NbN : Quelle est votre note de musique préférée ?
Fils de Teuhpu : Le ré mineur.
Lady brings bad news : Ré. On est accordés en ré.
Nagas : Le mi 7ème. Le la lidier aussi.
Mell : Le ré mineur. Je le joue beaucoup à la guitare. On retrouve souvent cette note dans les chansons qui marchent.
Têtard : Le mi mineur 7ème, tristounet, mais aussi le sol ces derniers temps. Sinon, nous avons fait une chanson “L’île de ré”, en ré.
Eiffel : Fa bémol parce qu’elle vaut mi.
Caméléons : Le mi. Beaucoup de nos chansons commencent par “mi”.
DJ La Teuf : Le fa dièse car il est près du sol.
Madsheerkhan : Les notes, c’est un jeu de beauté. Une note seule ne fait rien.
NH24 : Le mi. On peut tout faire en mi. Du trash comme du plus calme. C’est passe partout.
Rachid Wallas : Le do dièse.
Eddy la Gooyatsh : J’ai des affinités avec le sol. C’est une tonalité de guitariste.

NbN : Questions Keno… Le succès, ça fait gagner combien de temps avec les filles ?
Fils de Teuhpu : Cela dépend du QI et du temps qu’on parle. On peut gagner du temps ou en perdre.
Lady brings bad news : Une semaine et un resto. Mais on n’est pas encore assez dans les tabloïds. On ne fait pas ça pour les filles.
Nagas : Une paire d’années. Faire de la musique aide beaucoup. Tu es plus exposé, plus avenant. On est des rebelles, des bad boys. Les filles aiment les musiciens, les mecs tatoués et les dentistes. Si tu es les trois, c’est gagné.
Mell : Cela peut faire perdre du temps si la personne n’aime pas !
Têtard : On a trente piges, c’est fini ! Mais quand tu es scout, avec Rock Voisine, tu peux emballer sévère. “Starway to heaven” est aussi bien pour l’initiation amoureuse.
Eiffel (Romain) : Je passais déjà beaucoup de temps, avant, à draguer ma femme.
Caméléons : Pas mal. 95% d’efficacité en plus. Quand tu rencontre une fille, elle sait aussi trois fois plus vite que tu ne seras pas là le lendemain.
DJ La Teuf : Trois mois et deux minutes.
Madsheerkhan : Il faut prendre son temps.
NH24 : Ta question est un peu nulle. On ne fait pas de la musique pour ça. C’est avant tout une passion. Cela n’a rien à voir avec les filles.
Rachid Wallas : Cela peut en faire perdre ! Et on n’a pas tant de succès que ça !
Eddy la Gooyatsh : Je suis déjà marié et pas si connu que ça. Disons qu’après les concerts, je ne rencontre pas toujours les gens qui y ont assisté. Et généralement, ceux qui restent le font pour vous dire que ce que vous faites est bien, pas que votre musique est pourrie. Par rapport à avant, je n’ai dons pas senti une grande différence.

NbN : Vous avez mis combien de temps à venir ?
Fils de Teuhpu : 4h
Lady brings bad news : 30 minutes
Nagas : 60 minutes
Mell : 37 minutes
Têtard : 5 heures
Eiffel : 8 heures
Caméléons : 8 heures
DJ La Teuf : 6 heures
Madsheerkhan : 4 heures
NH24 : Deux heures car on s’est perdus
Rachid Wallas : 20 minutes
Eddy la Gooyatsh : 1 minute

NbN : Vous pensez qu’on a pris combien de temps de retard ?
Fils de Teuhpu : 5 minutes
Lady brings bad news : 50 minutes
Nagas : 15 minutes
Mell : 12 minutes
Têtard : 60 minutes
Eiffel : 30 minutes
Caméléons : 45 minutes
DJ La Teuf : 15 minutes
Madsheerkhan : Une heure
NH24 : 24 minutes
Rachid Wallas : On a pris de l’avance ! Donc – 5
Eddy la Gooyatsh : 2 minutes

NbN : Vous avez donné votre numéro de téléphone combien de fois ce soir ?
Fils de Teuhpu : Aucune
Lady brings bad news : On va dire un pour pouvoir jouer le chiffre au Keno.
Nagas : Une fois (à Magali).
Mell : Zéro… Ah non une fois ! En plus c’est vrai !
Têtard : 0, même si on ne peut pas jouer ce chiffre au Kéno.
Eiffel (Damien) : Je te file le miens et ça fait un.
Caméléons : Une fois ou deux.
DJ La Teuf : Une, parce que c’est près du zéro.
Madsheerkhan : Je vais te donner le miens : 06 …
NH24 : Plus de trois fois…
Rachid Wallas : Une fois
Eddy la Gooyatsh : On va miser sur 3.

NbN : Un petit mot aux internautes de Nancybynight.com ?
Fils de Teuhpu : Vive les gares désaffectées. Pour ceux qui votent Sarko : quand ils crèveront la gueule ouverte, on leur tendra même pas la main.
Lady brings bad news : Allez nous écouter sur Mysace et ne changez pas, vous êtes les meilleurs (rires) !
Nagas : Allez voir les artistes en live. Les meusiens ne sont pas tous des tocards.
Mell : Il n’y a pas de mot de la fin !
Têtard : On a encore envie de parler.
Eiffel : On vous embrasse sur les fesses pour le jour de l’an !
Caméléons : Allez l’ASNL !
DJ La Teuf : Salut !
Madsheerkhan : Cela fait deux fois qu’on vient au JDM et jamais deux sans trois.
NH24 : Michel, c’est le boss de la soirée. Michel du JDM, pas Michel Blanc.
Rachid Wallas : Nous avons fait une chanson qui s’appelait “Nancy by l’encre”.
Eddy la Gooyatsh : Amour, gloire et eau fraîche !

Propos recueillis par Alexandra Giroux

Prisons are currently in a critical situation as a journalist has recently written in The Guardian (Dyer 2007). However, during past two hundred years, they have emerged as a key component of the criminal system justice, after humanitarian ideologies have grown. Prisons are often seen as “the punishment”, “the default sanction” although the other kinds of punishment are only alternatives. In our individual, rational and secular society, the deprivation of liberty is the most severe punishment. Between 1992 and 2005, in England and Wales, there has been an increase of over 60% in the number of prisoners even if it was not matched by any comparable increase in rates of crime (Coyle 2005, p.2). But currently, there is a crisis in prisons, because of different factors including containment, visibility, authority and legitimacy. So, this essay will wonder why society still have prisons. First, it will critically assess and evaluate the justification of the existence of the prisons in modern society. Then, it will try to understand the sociological approach to the problem. In a third part, it will identify the effectiveness of alternatives to custody, focusing on the thesis of the abolitionists.

First, this essay will try to understand why prisons exist in modern society. When someone commits a criminal act, people think that something has to be done, because they want to be reassured, and currently, prisons are probably the first thing they think about. The huge influence of Human Rights lead to consider the prison as the most respectful punishment, instead of the death penalty or corporal punishment which are an attempt to stuffiness and which does not solve the problem. Even though, this essay will show later that others kinds of sanctions do exist. Public humiliations are not the norm currently because the public may be more sensitive about that: many people have been disturbed by the video of the execution of Saddam Hussein. Using the prisons is as well an easier way to deal with possible miscarriages of justice, where death penalty fails. Historically, it is also important to refer to reduction in the use of transportation in the early nineteenth century, which means the exile from one’s community (Coyle 2005, p.27). Society uses prisons instead of something else but it is a choice. Sometimes, some people are in prison even if they have not been judged by a court. Some people can experience immediate imprisonment, detention or suspended sentence of imprisonment: this is called “custody”. It can be wondered if women, youths or old people have their place in prisons. But, most important, we should consider the reasons given by the society toward the use of prisons.

Prisons have different aims. The “Gladstone Report”, made in 1895 explains that “prison treatment should have as its primary and concurrent objects deterrence and reformation” (Coyle 2005, p.30). In 2003, the Prison Service highlighted the aim “to deliver an effective execution of the sentences of the courts so as to reduce re-offending and protect the public” (Coyle 2005, p.48). But other less official justifications exist. An aim of the prison is deterrence, which means that people would probably not commit a crime if they know that it can lead to spend the rest of their life in a jail. It makes the offender himself fearful of committing another crime. This is a prevention measure. Then, there is retribution punishment: a price should be paid for crime. The people who have committed a crime are punished because they deserve it. Mathiesen (2000) explains that all the undesirable, unproductive and disruptive people are found in prisons. It is ass well important to mention rehabilitation: prisons are supposed to bring a moral or behavioural change in the offender. At least on the paper, prison could reduce the incidence of crime because it takes a form that will improve the character of the offenders. Different programs exist e.g. sex offenders can be told to go to therapy. But the paradox is that in prisons, 50-60% people have been there before (Smith and Natalier 2005 p.173). In addition, the question that has to be asked is how people can prove that they have changed. And as Goffman (1968) asks, it is important to wonder if prisons might play more a part in debilitation than in rehabilitation: when people become free, they have to rebuild their self, which is not easy. Another aim is the incapacitation: it is impossible or difficult to re-offend. People are kept away from the society and though from committing crime. Mathiesen (2000) states that it diverts the attention of lowing worker class from lower crimes. But it is not always a public protection; for instance, heroine dealers are usually quickly replaced so the problem is not solved. However, prisons are now ruled by some key performance indicators and some targets such as security, justice and control. There is a gap between what prisons are supposed to achieve and what really happen.

The etymology of “prisons” is “to seize” in Latin. Exploring the repertoire of people writing about prisons, leads to notice that some expressions are quite depreciative: “human warehousing” connotes the storage as “holding pan”. Most of the people totally agree with the concept of prison but want it to be far from them, “N.I.M.B.”, “not in my backyard”. But the aim of the prisons is hopefully not only to contain people. People probably have a wrong idea of what prisons are because of the clichés in the media, from soap-operas to general articles in newspapers. Although prisons are supposed to solve the problem of crime, sometimes, they can lead to further criminality: its ideological construction is reinforced. Prisoners may have a will of revenge and jails are a school of crime where people can easily exchange their criminal knowledges. Furthermore, sometimes, it stigmatizes more the people than it helps them. Social division in society is reinforced. And as society are focused on prisons, our attention is distracted from crimes of the powerful. There are several incoherences in the penal system. As Pat O’Malley (1999, quoted in Matthews and Roger, 2003, p.225) explains, at one moment, society can take reprehension measures on drugs and in another, some illegal drugs can be virtually decriminalized. Thomas (1972, quoted in Coyle 2005, p.30) highlights another paradox: deterrence and reformation cannot work together because the first implies a punitive and coercitive environment although the former is the result of an environment which encourages individual development and change. Many thinkers as well have tried to get a better understanding of prisons.

Sociology can help to understand the justification of the prisons. In different places and at different times, societies have used several kinds of penal strategies. Currently, political authority is legitimated by using the Enlightenment notion of “social contract” (Cavadino and Dignan 1997, p.46). It “provides a philosophical foundation for the existence and power of the modern state” (Held 1984, quoted in Smith and Natalier 2005, p.12). This means that people should give up with some of their liberties if they want to be protected by the State. If people commit crimes, they will go to prison but after a time of punishment, they will be able to re-enter the society as citizen. The social order, maintained by culture and power is necessary because it maintains peace in the society. Durkheim (quoted in Garland 1990, p.24) talks about “collective conscience”: prisons are the result of a moral phenomenon because society requires a moral framework. He explains that vengeance is the primary motivation which underpins punitive actions so the explanation is not totally rational and owns much to the Christian theology of sin, guilt, punishment, expiation and redemption (Coyle 2005, pp.19-20). But it is possible to make a critic of Durkheim’s theory because it is no longer the society who punishes but more a specific state apparatus. Nevertheless, prisons are linked to social structure and economy.

A cynical argument would be to asset that prisons are the result of the capitalist society: in order to keep the labour force, it is better to siphon it off than to kill it. But, it is as well the most expensive kind of punishment: it costs £37,305 per person and per year to keep someone in prison and this money can be used for other purposes such as education. Currently, prisons are an industry and both public and private prisons do exist. Sometimes, firms hire out prison labour to do different products. The Marxist theory highlights the relation between the dominant class and subordinate class, which is exploited. Penalty serves to articulate state power, to protect the rich people and to legitimate the use of power in controlling political dissent, according to Marx (Smith and Natalier 2005, p.19). Similarly, criminal justice encourages people to work instead of begging or stealing and criminal law limits unrest arising from social inequality because revolution is more difficult. Prisons could be seen as an instrument of class control where inequalities are reproduced and emphasised. But he Marxist theory, highly influenced by political and economic beliefs presents an important pattern of determination as being an exclusive one. And whereas Marxism states that punishment reinforces class division and ruling class dominance, Durkheim thinks that it reinforces solidarity which is not class based. But it is the beginning of a more global reflexion about power.

It can be interesting to understand what punishment tells about the distribution of dominance. Sometimes, society deals more with sense than reason when it comes about punishment. Though, prisons can be seen as revenge. Prisons serve the interests of the powerful and any group who challenge them are kept under tight control and regulation. Law is used to legitimate the use of prisons. In different times and in different places, people who were incarcerated have been there for different reasons. As a reminder, Baudelaire and Sade have been imprisoned. On the other hand, during war condition, some individuals have killed thousands of people without going into prison. Our culture legitimates who is a criminal and has the power to decide who has to go to prison. It is important to consider as well the issue of legitimacy, that it to look to the claim made within the distribution of power to justify authority. Weber explains that there are three kinds of power: charismatic, legal rational and traditional. And all systems of power use legitimacy. Michel Foucault has worked a lot on the power issue, a system and regulation which is imposed upon a population. He shows that sovereign power replaced with disciplinary power. With his well-known metaphor of the Panopticon, Foucault analyzes the self-regulation of the behaviour due to the fact that people cannot tell if they are subject to the gaze of a guard: “The major effect of the Panopticon: to induce in the inmate a state of conscious and permanent visibility that assures the automatic functioning of power” (Foucault quoted in Smith and Natalier 2005, p.29). The justification for the prisons is present in our every-day discourses, through which knowledge are reproduced. The rise of community corrections allows the expansion of state power to be hidden and really softly, control masked. Foucault states that the defects of the prison have all been recognised and criticized from as early as 1820s up to the present day while they are deeply rooted in our society. He explains this contradiction by arguing that prisons divide working class against themselves, enhance the fear of the prison and thus guarantee the authority and power of the police (Garland 1990, p.150). But people should keep it mind that this is reductionist to think that prisons are only a tool of power.

Waddington notices that when it is used inappropriately prison can be “an expensive way of making bad people worse” (Home Office 1990, quoted in Coyle 2005, p.174). So, the questions which have to be asked is if society can get rid of prisons altogether, and if it should. This essay will consider the thesis of the abolitionists and then, try to understand what can be done instead of using prisons. Some people points out the crisis of legitimacy, referring to prisons as others question if the use of power is morally justified and if, generally, prisons are efficient. Prisons cost money, they are morally degrading, they do not solve the problems and they enhance the division which exists in society. Consequently, it has to be considered why society still uses them. Abolitionists are pro human rights and they promote a positive response to social harm: they state that it should not and cannot be regulated effectively by criminal law and thus, that “the role of criminal justice system should be radically reduced” (De Haan 1991, p.203). They think that prisons only worsen problems and thus that they are counter productive, theory which was outlined by Foucault. The appropriate reaction toward crime, which is a result of the social order, is not punishment, according to them. Thus, they are for depenalisation, decriminalisation, decarceration, diversion, decategorisation, delegation and deprofessionalisation (Cohen 1988). Their approach of the problem of prisons is essentially reflexive. They point out an ethical paradox and wonder if it is logical to solve violence by another form of violence. The relationship between crime and its control is complex and society take the risk to degrade and to segregate people, by sending them to jail. It could be seen as simplistic and absurd to want to compensate one pain by another that society inflicts on the prisoner. In addition, while the criminal is blamed, the victim is ignored most of the time.

Abolitionists propose different alternatives to prisons. They laud more mutuality, more solidarity and a social regulation which would work semi-autonomously. They are in favour of social policy rather than crime control policy, compensation rather than retaliation, reconciliation rather than blame allocation. To sum up, they are more for inclusion than exclusion. They defend the idea of an informal justice, considering that criminal justice system necessitates decentralization with neighbourhood courts as replacement. They assert that crime control is not the solution. However, a wide variety of solutions exist toward each problem: violence is a social problem yet propriety crime is an economic problem. Criticised by some feminists who were wondering what should be done about rape criminals or violent persons towards women, abolitionists answer that prison can only reinforce the misogynistic behaviour of individuals and though that it is not the solution. It can be can stated that their vision of the world is quite naïve and idealistic. Even so, they define themselves as pragmatic. This theory has many strengths: it is more ethical, there is a wide variety of responses to each problem and social policy is a bride concept. Nevertheless, it is not possible to omit to stress some weaknesses: abolitionism sounds like a Utopia, the approach is essentially reflexive and the risk of such a practice could lead to social chaos. It is probably impossible to achieve a kind of program such as social policies. It is not obvious that crime prevention would be more successful with non punitive measures. And the question to be asked is how justice is possible in an unjust society. But in any case, the theory of abolitionists helps to rethink and redefine prisons.

There are other alternatives than totally getting rid of prisons. Instead of minimising state intervention: it could be possible to think about a punishment more effective, responsive and accountable. This essay will try to consider some examples. Probation means that court can be persuaded that punishment was inexpedient, regarding both to the character of the offender and the nature of the offence. This is an important alternative to custody. It can be community penalties. Another solution is the rehabilitation, which means that offenders can be cured of their criminality by the provision of training and treatment. Then, it is a benefit for the society. Another punishment possible is the re-integrative shaming which means that offenders should be shamed and that they should accept they have committed something wrong. After this period, which is not supposed to be exclusion or stigmata, the society could readmit them, helped by reintegration. Another concept is “restorative justice”: repairing instead of punishing. The word “reparation” is used when someone makes amends for the damage caused by the offence, considering that it can take various forms. Other intermediate sanctions exist: community corrections, periodic detention, home detention, suspended sentences, fines, electronic monitoring and so on. There are several advantages of using them: minor offenders are protected from the potential harm of imprisonment, a wide range of sentencing options are available, it could help to save money, it can solve the problem of overcrowded prisons and this is good for rehabilitation. In Japan, only the most dangerous offenders are imprisoned: as a result, a low crime rate is observed (Smith and Natalier 2005, p.190). But it is certain that this kind of alternative punishment can work for people such as psychopaths or people immersed in a strong subculture. So prisons should be rethought. The conclusion of the Woolf Report was that “a stable system prison should be built on three interdependent pillars: security, control and justice” (Coyle 2005, p.37). But it takes time for the things to change: even if the principal recommendations have been accepted by the government, it has not provided any timetable about how and when the prisons will radically change.

To sum up, the prisons has to be legitimate with the public, the penal staff and the penal subjects. It is not the role of the people to give the justification: they should be clear and obvious. This essay have shown that prisons are a really important issue in our society: the use of imprisonment has increased as courts have been committing more offenders to prisons with longer sentences. The society gives some justification about it but our attitude toward penal institutions is ambiguous. Sociology helps to understand it better, highlighting the role of the social contract and the issue money and power. But some theorists try to find some alternatives to custody e.g. the abolitionists or others, who have brand ideas but that have to be critically evaluated. If prisons are ineffective, too cruel, incoherent or too expensive, since corporal punishment is not acceptable anymore and because killing people is a morally problematic, it is essential to consider the new initiatives in punishment. Because what is really striking is the fact that “prisons exist and continue to be used, but there is no coherent or overarching framework explaining why we have them, how they should be organised and what they should do with offenders.” (Smith and Natalier 2005, p.175).

References:

Cavadino, M and Dignan, J. 1997. The Penal System. London: Sage
Coyle, A. 2005. Understanding Prisons: Key Issues in Policy and Practice. Berkshire: Open University press
De Haan, W. Abolitionism and Crime Control: a Contradiction in Term in Stenson, K. 1991. The Politics of Crime Control. London: Sage
Dyer, C. 16/11/2007. Longer sentences have led to jail crisis says top judge – The Guardian [online] Available from : http://politics.guardian.co.uk/homeaffairs/story/0,,2212162,00.html [Accessed 16 November 2007]
Garland, D. 1990. Punishment and Modern Society. Oxford: Oxford University Press
Goffman, E. 1968 Asylums. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Matthews, R and Young, J. 2003. The New Politics of Crime and Punishment. Cullompton: William Publishing
Smith, P and Natalier K. 2005. Understanding Criminal Justice: Sociological Perspectives. London: Sage Publications LTD

Medias play an important part in the representation of race. Race, far from being only natural, is a social construction, linked to power relations and variable in time. In order to understand our society, it is important to develop a critical consciousness regarding to the way meanings are produced. This essay will try to understand if while ways of representing “race” are constantly changing, the underlying message that “whiteness” is the norm is still evident in popular cultural imagery and still reflects actual power relations. The dichotomy black and white has not only to be thought in term of nationalism, chauvinism, patriotism and racism; the problem is more complex. First, it will be argued that whiteness tends to be the norm. But things are changing and the cliché of the white-heterosexual-man is less and less the only way of being, according to the media.

Very often, in the representations of the Medias, whiteness seems to be the norm. As a result of a logical binary opposition, colour exists because of white. This order of the world is imposed by some social groups and whiteness acts like a marker of power. A struggle exists between the exploited and exploiters but most of the time it is a symbolic struggle, as the representations are symbols. “White is beautiful” and a white person is rarely asked to speak for his particular group, which is not the case when you have a coloured skin. Thompson (1990, quoted in Ferguson, 1998) explains that constructing of whiteness as a norm is done by constructing colour as abnormal. Different means are possible including legitimating, dissimulation, unification, fragmentation or reification. An example of reification can be found in the movie Indigènes by Rachid Bouchareb, which shows how North African soldiers were marginalised during the World War II. Ideology is here used to eradicate certain key historical issues. The power is often exercised by words as well. Van Dijk has analyzed the repertoire headlines of The Sun from August 1981 to January 1986 (Ferguson 1998, p.130). He has realized that ethnic minorities were “systematically associated with conflict, crime, intolerance, [and] unreliability” (Van Dijk 1991, quoted in Ferguson 1998). So, the power is often exercised by the media and as a result, a false consciousness is developed.

Sometimes, more than being beautiful, whiteness is invisible because whites are assumed “not to have race”. Being white would be natural and talking about “race” would mean talking about all the people who are not white. “To talk about race is to talk about all races except the white” (Dyes 1997, p.18). The origins of this hegemonic discourse have to be found in slavery, colonisation and immigration. For black African slaves, the difference with white people is “obvious” but when the difference is not obvious, like with the Irish people, the Medias will create the distinctive traits or the cultural practices. It can be added that the criteria of beauty is generally to be white as confirms the cliché of the tall blonde haired woman. Other colours are usually shown as exotic. A symbolic struggle exists between white people and coloured people so that it can be asked if it is linked with the “divide and rule” principles practiced by Cesare Borgia.

Colour appears to be constructed as otherness. Stereotypes are often used and people are reduced to a few simple, essential characteristics. The Other is represented as being exotic, dangerous, humorous or pitied. When the Medias deal with coloured people, it is often because the subject is sport, immigration, crime, cultural differences or because it is linked with the problems of the Third World. Very often, in the media, the Other is depicted as being a primitive, a member of the Third World or an underclass person (Solomos and Les 2000, p.159). Sometimes, some amalgams are even done, like after the 11 September, when the confusion between Muslims and Arabs was anchored in the mind of some people. Lombrosco explains by the biological positivism that physical traits are used to distinguish the features of the criminal and to create a link between the appearance and the behaviour. Edwards (2007, p.24) shows how colonizers have used photography to construct the difference between them and colonized people: cultural difference was reduced to physical distinction and photography has been used to sort humanity. This reinforced white as norm, emphasised the power relations, as hegemony was socially constructed.  Now, the otherness is still constructed to justify the use of the migrants as an ideal labour force that can be exploited (Spencer 2006). Representations maintain hierarchies. Structuralism explains that by the fact that meaning is made through difference. This idea is linked to one of the theories of Lacan who shows that we know who when we understand who we are not. The construction of colour as otherness has several consequences: unequal distribution of valued goods, discrimination, ideological racism and institutional racism. But, step by step, things are slowly changing and it can be wondered if whiteness is really still the norm.

Nowadays, the gap is getting closer and more and more coloured people are represented in the Medias. In 1915, The Birth of a Nation by D.W. Griffiths was defending the white honour and glory. The 1940’s where the era of black musicals. In 1967, a coloured Francie was the first doll in the Mattel line with a truly dark complexion. In the 1980’s, the integrationist dream collapsed and lots of black independent film makers began to have success. In 1984, Vanessa Williams was the first black who won the title of Miss America: the stereotypes of beauty are slowly changing. Nayak (2003) in the chapter of his book “Wiggers, Wannabes and White Negroes: Emerging Ethnicities and Cultural Fusions” analyses why nowadays, lots of young people would like to be black. He explains that for some young people, whiteness is monolithic and bland. He points out their desire for intercultural exchange, their will to contest “the white dominance and the cultural power of whiteness”. Today, with positive discrimination and social changes, coloured people are present everywhere: news programs, reality show, cartoons, toys, and so on. Positive aspects are seen. Hage (2000) deals with a case where multiculturalism is a success and analyzes the benefits of diversification in Australia. But he shows that this is a complex process: the Other is both in dialectic of inclusion and exclusion and sometimes the media construct the migrants as “wanted as unwanted”. We can wonder if we are leaving in a United-Colours-of-Benetton-World. “Salad bowl” and “melting pot” are two different concepts. Likewise, assimilation and pluralism do not mean the same thing. Assimilation is a process by which distinct groups merge to form a common one and when majority values and practices are adopted by minority groups. On the contrary, pluralism refers to the fact that different groups mix but retain their own characteristics. If black people are represented, it has to be asked how they are represented. For instance, medias wrote in the 1930’s about Josephine Baker that she was a “gracious animal” (Pieterse J.N. 1992,. p.183). This black singer was an object of curiosity, a cliché of herself, between love and fear, amor and timor. Several questions can be also asked about the real influence of the Medias, the difference which could be bigger into groups than between groups and about the fact that finally in our society, each of us wants to be unique as the adaptable products of marketing show. Moreover, this approach of the problem is quite Eurocentric and in other countries, whiteness is not the norm.

But even in Europe, sometimes, blackness and colour in general are invisible. For instance, advertisements for the products of L’Oréal involve lots of coloured woman, which is logical because the company has an international market aim. For white people, it is not striking to see an advertisement with Beyoncé or Aiswarya. As L’Oréal provides products for different kinds of skins and different kinds of hair, it is totally logical to promote a foundation cream for black women with a black woman. In our society, each person wants to have products exactly done for him or her and marketing divides the people in small groups in order to sell them products. For instance, Naomi Campbell can be used to sell products to young black urban women. But when the audience see the coloured people, they do not really see that they are not white. The same situation can be found in the domain of sport. Jerry Reinsdorf, owner of the Chicago Bulls, was asking what the colour of Michael Jordan was. He answered that he has no colour (quoted in Andrews 2001, p.107). Michael Jordan is seen as an American Icon, far from the figure of “the demonized African American Otherness”. In golf, Eldrick “Tiger” Woods is also an example of colorblindness, as he is the perfect America’s son. It promotes the idea that America has achieved its multicultural ideal. But we should beware that black people do not become only commodities, e.g. the commodification of the black athletic body is in many ways the cultural logic of post/colonial racism. The fact that many black people are visible in the media and are considered with respect because of their performances does not mean that integration has been totally achieved. For instance, nowadays, Polish people are viewed with suspicion in the national press.

If colour can be invisible, colour can also be the norm as some examples picked up in music can show. For instance, rap and hip-hop in general are a positive valorisation of blackness. The roots of hip-hop are found in the 1970’s, in the Bronx and most of the performers are Afro-Americans. Some rare exceptions exist like Eminem and Vanilla Ice, often depicted as “white rappers”. But what is striking in rap music is the fact that sometimes, it is itself racist and reproduces clichés of black people such as violence. Performers of reggae are also most of the time black because at first, it is Jamaican music. The lyrics are about love, faith but as well poverty, injustice and other broad social issues. If a white person sings reggae, it can sounds like something cynical and inappropriate. But the way you sing is not reducible to the corporeal. A last example is jazz, a musical art form which has appeared out of African and European music traditions, among African American communities in the south of USA. Dyes in his book White (1997) explains that he knows what it means to be white, from his own experience of being the only white person among black people. Relations of power described by Foucault are inverted because in jazz, whiteness is not the norm.

To sum up, this essay has shown that sometimes whiteness is the norm in the Medias: white is beautiful, white is invisible and colour is constructed as otherness. But the representations of race are changing and now, “whiteness” cannot be categorized as being the norm. Currently, our approach of colour is different and sometimes, blackness is invisible or is the norm. But the issue is complex because ideology is not directly visible and can only be experienced or comprehended. Medias exist in close sympathetic relationship with power and established values, and subjects are constructed through ideology. It is important to stress that ethnicity, race and class can work separately or in combination to create boundaries. Asking the question in dialectic of white or black is not enough because whiteness has its own hierarchy. Moreover, minority groups are internally divided by class, gender, age and so on. Assimilation is not an easy task but the question to be asked is whether it is the solution.

References:

Andrews, D.L. 2001. Michael Jordan, inc. Albany: State University of New York Press.
Back, L and Solomos, J. 2000. Theories of Race – Racism. London – New York: Routledge.
Dyes, R. 1997. White. London: Routledge.
Edwards, S. 2007. Photography: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press
Ferguson, R. 1998. Representing “Race”. New-York: Arnold.
Hage, G. 2000. White Nation: Fantasies of White Supremacy in a Multicultural Society. London: Routledge.
Nayak, A. 2003. Race, Place and Globalization: Youth Cultures in a Changing World. Oxford: Berg.
Pieterse, JN. 1992. White on Black. London: Yale.
Spencer, S. 2006. Race and Ethnicity: Culture, Identity and Representation. London: Routledge.

Photography has become a fixture in society. This process of recording pictures was invented in 1830 and has been developed more and more each day, from the daguerreotype and the collotype to the current digital file. The etymology of the word is “drawing with light”. At first sight, photographs seem to be an objective and neutral record of reality. But it is more: under the denotation – the non coded iconic message, we should consider the connotation – the coded iconic message, and the influence of photography on different groups. As Bolton (1992, p.XI) stresses, this medium contributes simultaneously to the domination and the liberation of the social life. But what is the power of photography? And did people destroyed its potential as an own medium? We will critically evaluate the state that the reception of both chemical and digital technology has been “bungled”. First we will point out the weaknesses of the reception of photography, arguing that it was a mess. Then, we will turn on the strengths of this technology, to show that finally, it was a success.

To begin, we can agree that in a way, the reception of both chemical and digital photographic technology has been messed up. According to Benjamin (1932), photography has been corrupted and ruined by generations. Before photography, the only means to reproduce nature was painting, unique artworks done by artists. Most of the time, the aim of theses paintings were to reproduce the reality, that is why some of them have used photography to achieve their goals much more easily. With the arrival of photography as a new medium, art was redefined because photography is not usurpation or a copy of painting. During the last few years, new forms of art have become more and more conceptual. But the danger is that art would become nothing more than ideas, signs, allusions or concepts. Baudrillard (1997, p.16) defends art, instead of the idea of art: “The bottle rack of Duchamp is an idea; the Campbell’s box by Warhol in an idea; Yves Klein selling air for a blank cheque in a gallery, this is an idea”. But the images, whatever they are, are neither the truth, nor the reality, as the story of Plato’s cave shows: shadows on a wall are not real. Karl Feuerbach states in The Essence of Christianity (1843, quoted in Sontag, 1979) that today, we prefer the image to the thing, the copy to the original, the representation to the reality, appearance to being.  It is only a representation of an idea and not the idea itself. The status of truth in photography is related to the problem of its realism and realism is a cultural convention. We decode photographs by having a look at what is present in the image itself, trying to locate its various signs and meanings. Photography does not always serve noble interests because sometimes, using it is only seen as a social rite, a defence against anxiety or a tool of power.

The technique of photography had also been spoiled through incompetence. Benjamin (1932) states that because of mechanical reproduction and ready made art, photography loses its aura – a religious word referring to the auratic qualities of icons. Lost in the flow of images, nothing impresses us anymore. Reproduction is really easy and becomes more and more thanks to digital photography. We make pictures, we consume them and we though need still more of it. Sontag (1979, p.24) explains: “Industrial societies turn their citizens into image-junkies – it is the mot irresistible form of mental pollution”. The more photography penetrates society, the less impact and value it has, according to Benjamin (1932). So, is photography a cheap object or can we confer to it some aura, some energy field? Aura may be related with time because when we see pictures of the time, we feel sometimes nostalgic. But do we really abolish beauty by generalizing it? And how can we trust what we see? One of the particularities of photography is indexicality, which is the traces which exist under the camera and is a part of the medium photography. But, as Büchler (2000, p.21) states, “to reflect is both to show and to hide”. Thanks to the chemical process of chemical photography, we can point to the negative but is it a proof that what we see is true? It is not complicated to deceive or to manipulate people and the fakery detection is difficult, moreover with the digital photography where each pixel can be easily changed. We should not trust all the images because trick effects utilize the special credibility of the photograph, “this [...] being simply its exceptional power of denotation” as stressed Roland Barthes (1993, p.200). Sometimes, fake photographs have been used to change the past, e.g. the photography of Lenin where Trotsky has been removed. It is also true today, for example when the photography of O.J. Simpson was manipulated on the cover of Time: the face of the men is darker and thus more mystic and scary.

Photography had sometimes morally acted ineptly, from blaspheme to propaganda. Its use could be considered as a chronic voyeuristic relation to the world and as an implicit aggression as show some documents: fashion, animal photography, advertisements, gutter press and so on. What about the photographers who decide to take a picture instead of helping the people, as we can see in some war photographs? We can as well highlight that pornography is the reflection of the male domination, as women are observed through men eyes. In our atomized society, where alienation prevails, human beings become commodities: we call that “objectification” or “reification”. The human labour is transformed in a commodity-labour. Because of commercial interests, photography has been degraded and ruined. As Law (2007) notices, “too often [...], the social and cultural reception of technology is ‘bungled’, distorted by the concentrated possession of material and intellectual resources in private hands”. When it is commercialised, it changes the nature of the picture. Everybody knows the face of Che Guevara because it has been printed on posters, t-shirts or cups. But who is able to talk about the Cuban revolution? Probably just a few people. So, does photography advance knowledge? What is the relationship between literacy and photography in the mass media? What should we think about the program “No comment”, on the channel Euronews, where images are displayed without any comment? In our visual culture, ideology is constructed. And sometimes, photography could lead to stereotypes. Edwards (2007, p.25) mentions a photography of a Malayan person, which could be seen as anthropologist but who finally generated a pseudo science of racism. Photography allows doing categories and categories can be dangerous clichés. So, this leaves the question of what we are supposed to believe: the truth claim or the scepticism.
On the other hand, we can state that the reception of photographic technology has been succeeded. First of all, photography was a great opportunity for a wide range of artists to express themselves. One of them, Man Ray, stated: “I photograph what I do not wish to paint and I paint what I cannot photograph”, pointing out that photography is an autonomous media, not a pale copy. Benjamin (1932, p.517), in his essay A Short History of Photography, refers to Recht’s metaphor of the music: “Drawing and colouring, for the painter, correspond to the violinists production of sound, the photographer, like the pianist, has the advantage of a mechanical device that is subject to restrictive laws, whilst the violinist is under no such restraint”. But does mechanical reproduction destroy the aura? Not necessary because it is more a qualitative than a quantitative issue. We can appreciate a photograph from the beginning of the century because it is nostalgic and we do not have in mind that it may have been reproduced a lot of times. Moreover, photography is a part of new forms of art: it allows immortalizing artworks such as Christo’s installations or Richard Long’s land art. If sometimes art photography is a bungle, it may more concern the content of the picture than the technical process. That is why education plays an important part in the construction of our gaze.

Then, photography, which is in part an objective record of reality, was a revolution in the production of documents. In his book Photography: A Very Short Introduction, Edwards points out the dichotomy between art and documentary modes of photographic practice. The value of documents is inestimable for meteorologists, coroners or archaeologists. It this helps to develop knowledge and understanding of the world and to create social order. Benjamin (1932) highlights the concept of optical consciousness: the hidden, the micro, the macro – all appear to human eye thanks to this new technology. Eadweard Muybridge, pioneer photographer of the moving image, brought a lot to scientific knowledge, by photographing each fraction of second of a running horse. Photography changes our perception of every day by showing things we had never seen before. Perfect reproduction has allowed scientific groups to understand how was moving the animal, something that has never been shown. Mass production helps the dissemination of the information and knowledge: this is simply called “democratisation”. More generally, photographs are reliable and objective documents which are really useful in scientific, historic or even social fields. Photography creates social bounds between people as well. Sometimes, people know each other and they share pictures because they are relatives or because they have the same passion for taking pictures. But sometimes, the photographer and the viewer do not know each other. This is the strength of photography. A picture from a newspaper or and poster can have an important effect on the crowd. It could for instance sensitize people to some social problems such as famine, poverty or illness. If people are more aware of how the others live, then we can attest that the reception of photography has been a success.

One of the other functions of the photography is also to record. Currently, the State uses photographs in a myriad ways, from ID card to passports, not to mention driving licenses. The aim of this record is to identify the people, to confirm that they are who they pretend to be and thus to be able to control them. Thanks to digital photography, the storage and the circulation are even easier. That was not the case when we only had paintings or memory as tools. Photographs are as well a way to build up a narrative story, the personal memory being part of the collective memory. Currently, our family albums are stocked on electronic devices. Even if these digital mounts are fragile, each of us is now able to cheat death, memorializing important events and every day life. Holmes (quoted in Edwards, 2007, 88) described photography as a “mirror with a memory”. The benefits for the future are not negligible. The fixed picture is a testimony of the past, a frozen reflexion in time, which establishes connection across time and space. But photography, instead of Greek statues, is perishable. Chemical photography grows old with time. Digital photography is not more reliable: we need a computer with a specific device if we want to read a picture stored on a floppy disk.

To sum up, even though it has often been argued that the reception of photography has been messed up, it has been a success as well. The link of photography with the paint, the appropriation of its technique of reproduction ant its moral consequences were sometimes problematic. Nevertheless, photography has allowed some people to express themselves through this medium, in art, and to share knowledge with others, by producing documents. This is the magic act of recording. Dealing with photography is considering the role of iconoclasts – the ones who destroy the images and are determined enemies of idol worship – and the role of iconolaters – the ones who worships images. We can consider that iconolaters have been stronger than iconoclasts, which is a testimony of the power of images. Today, it is hard to imagine our society without photography. This is a huge march because photography is a kind of democratisation, as experiences could be translated into images. Do we have to believe in technical determinism or in other words that social progress is driven by technological innovation? Even if we do not, we cannot forget that photography is the reflection of the society and helps to have a better understanding of it.

References:
Alvarado, Manuel; Buscombe, Edward; Collins, Richard; (2000); Representation and Photography: A screen education reader; Palgrave Macmillan
Barthes, Roland; (1993); A Roland Barthes Reader; Vintage edition
Benjamin, Walter; (1932); “A Short History of Photography”; in Selected Writings 2
Bolton, Richard; (1989); The Contest of Meaning: Critical Histories of Photography, Cambridge, Mass.; London: MIT Press
Büchler, Pavel(2000); Ghost Stories; Pavel Bücher and Proboscis
Edwards, Steve; (2007); Photography: A Very Short Introduction; Oxford University Press
Law, Alex; (2007); Digital Bungling: Realism in an Unreal World; [online]; Available from: http://www.variant.randomstate.org/30texts/ALaw.html [Accessed 28 October 2007]
Sontag, Susan; (1979); On Photography; Penguin Books
Zurbrugg Nicholas; (1997); Jean Baudrillard, art and artefact; Sage publications