Content uploaded by Martin Lukk
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Martin Lukk on Dec 20, 2017
Content may be subject to copyright.
Response to Ron Haviv
Martin Lukk, Keith Doubt
Human Rights Quarterly, Volume 38, Number 1, February 2016, pp. 211-216
(Article)
Published by Johns Hopkins University Press
DOI:
For additional information about this article
Accessed 20 Dec 2017 07:20 GMT
https://doi.org/10.1353/hrq.2016.0002
https://muse.jhu.edu/article/609309
HUMAN RIGHTS QUARTERLY
Human Rights Quarterly 38 (2016) 211–216 © 2016 by Johns Hopkins University Press
Response to Ron Haviv
Martin Lukk* & Keith Doubt**
Ron Haviv’s response to our article “Bearing Witness and the Limits of War
Photojournalism”1 is a welcome opportunity for dialogue between practi-
tioners and scholars in the fields of visual culture and human rights, and it
offers us the chance to clarify the interests and concerns of our work.
First, we wish to stress a consideration we express in the article, namely,
Haviv’s courage in taking the photographs in question at considerable risk to
his life, and affirm a shared lament that these photographs, as documents that
bore witness, did not do more to galvanize world leaders and prevent the
violence and injustice that started in Bijeljina in 1992 and spread throughout
Bosnia-Herzegovina for four years. This kind of violence and injustice is rep-
licated today in Syria, Iraq, and other sites of conflict, where photojournalists
continue to work under dangerous circumstances to create evidence and
provoke the world’s compassion. Haviv as a veteran photojournalist suggests
there is nothing simple about taking such photographs. We believe him, and
we see our work as exploring, from a scholarly perspective, some of the
complexity of visually representing war. As the title of our original article
indicates, our interest is in the action of bearing witness, as a sociological
event, and what this says about the limits of war photojournalism.
Haviv’s response to our article is critical on four points, three empiri-
cal and one methodological. Regarding the former, Haviv identifies three
instances in which he claims our descriptive account of his activities in
Bijeljina, during which he captured the image of the kneeling man, is inac-
* Martin Lukk is a graduate student in the Department of Sociology, University of Toronto. His
research is in political and cultural sociology in transnational context.
** Keith Doubt is the author of Towards a Sociology of Schizophrenia: Humanistic Reflections
(University of Toronto Press), Sociology After Bosnia and Kosovo: Recovering Justice (Rowman
& Littlefield), Sociologija Nakon Bosne (Buybook, Sarajevo), Understanding Evil: Lessons
from Bosnia (Fordham University Press), and Through the Window: Kinship and Elopement
in Bosnia-Herzegovina (Central European University Press).
1. Martin Lukk & Keith Doubt, Bearing Witness and the Limits of War Photojournalism:
Ron Haviv in Bijeljina, 37 Hum. Rts. Q. 629 (2015).
Vol. 38212 HUMAN RIGHTS QUARTERLY
curate; he suggests these errors indicate a “lack of knowledge of the situation
as it unfolded on the ground” and are thus crucial in nature.
Most of the written accounts of Haviv’s work in Bosnia-Herzegovina
have highlighted his well-known photograph from Bijeljina of the soldier
with sunglasses kicking the body of a murdered civilian. The critic Susan
Sontag, for instance, has commented on this photo2 and many journalistic
accounts of Haviv’s experiences revolve around the circumstances of the
photograph’s creation.3 Thus, while the story of that prominent photograph
has been explicitly established, the particulars surrounding other images, like
that of the kneeling man, are scattered among the many accounts of Haviv’s
coverage of Bosnia. In our article, we do the work of compiling details from
different accounts to create a coherent narrative of how the kneeling man
photograph came to be. We believe it constitutes an advance in the limited
scholarship on Haviv’s photography, especially since previous writing con-
sistently misconstrues the image as a “pre-execution photograph,”4 as if the
people standing next to the kneeling man are about to kill him with the pistols
displayed.5 Our research is based on the relatively abundant but fragmented
documentation available about the image in question, and we believe our
article correctly portrays the circumstances surrounding its creation.
In response to Haviv’s specific criticisms: (1) we readily grant that it was
Arkan’s men rather than Arkan himself who told Haviv not to take photo-
graphs at certain times. We recognize that in a different analysis it might be
worthwhile to probe this distinction and, for instance, the extent to which
Arkan had not accounted for incriminating photographs being taken; how-
ever, we find that it is for our purposes a distinction without a difference.
If Arkan was in command of his paramilitary unit (there is no indication to
the contrary)6 and the Tigers operated according to his wishes, then we are
2. See susan sontag, RegaRding tHe Pain of otHeRs 89 (2003).
3. See, e.g., John Kifner, A Pictorial Guide to Hell; Stark Images Trace the Balkans’ Descent
and a Photographer’s Determination, n.Y. times, 24 Jan. 2001, available at http://www.
nytimes.com/2001/01/24/books/pictorial-guide-hell-stark-images-trace-balkans-descent-
photographer-s.html; James Estrin, Photography in the Docket, as Evidence, N.Y. Times,
2 Apr. 2013, available at http://lens.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/04/02/photography-in-the-
docket-as-evidence/.
4. susie LinfieLd, tHe CRueL RadianCe: PHotogRaPHY and PoLitiCaL VioLenCe 272 (2010).
5. Charles Simic’s brief treatment of the photograph in the essay “Archives of Horror” similarly
discloses his “horror at what is about to take place,” implying that the subject is about to
be shot, given “that these men with guns are without pity.” See Charles Simic, Archives
of Horror, in memoRY Piano 97, 99 (2006). Bridget Conley-Zilkic also notes that “a gun
is held at the ready” behind the subject, but presents a more accurate, though abridged,
account of what Haviv has said later happened to the man. See Bridget Conley-Zilkic,
What Do You Want? On Witnessing Genocide Today, in tHe PoweR of witnessing: RefLeC-
tions, ReVeRbeRations, and tRaCes of tHe HoLoCaust 319 (Nancy R. Goodman & Marilyn B.
Meyers eds., 2012).
6. Haviv has described Arkan leading his troops on their first day in Bijeljina, giving them
a preparatory speech, and him being required to obtain Arkan’s permission to leave the
2016 Response to Ron Haviv 213
not misrepresenting the situation in our statement, which appears by way
of introduction to the analysis of a photograph that was not among those
taken in secret. It is a hasty generalization to suggest this discredits the rest
of our paper.
(2) Haviv objects to the notion that his camera may have been, as we
inquired, “a mirror through which Arkan was able to promote his terrifying
images to the world,”7 on the grounds that Arkan attempted to take his film
before allowing him to leave the city. We do not see the answer as being quite
so simple: what makes Haviv’s work in Bijeljina a particularly compelling
case is that he was there with the warlord Arkan’s consent, who agreed to let
Haviv witness his troops “liberate” Bijeljina from “Muslim fundamentalists.”8
Haviv has acknowledged that whenever he photographed the Tigers, it
was by Arkan’s invitation, but that this ultimately “backfired” on Arkan.”9
Certainly, this statement makes sense in the case of Haviv’s evidence of the
Tigers’ criminality. Our paper, however, is concerned precisely with how
Arkan may have benefitted from Haviv’s witnessing. What were Arkan’s
intentions in welcoming Haviv into his midst and to what extent did he
realize these intentions? Haviv acknowledges that Arkan wanted to control
the media to his advantage;10 our paper explores one way in which this may
have occurred, using the notion of status degradation.
It does not appear to us that Haviv can simply deny that his work in some
way played into Arkan’s agenda or that there was potential for this, despite
ultimately constituting evidence against him. Vladimir Petrovi´c’s illuminating
recent article follows our reasoning and argues for Arkan having used “all
the media coverage he could get to boost his reputation, intimidate oppo-
nents, outsmart competitors and ease recruitment into the [Serb Volunteer
Guard].”11 He suggests Arkan recognized the value of having a photographer
at his side, for reasons beyond personal vanity. As Petrovi´c writes, Arkan
made use of “a wartime strategy in which visual documents performed a
double function, being simultaneously both the evidence and the tool of
violence”; Haviv’s photographs from Bijeljina have an inevitable relation-
cordoned-off city, suggesting a strictly managed operation. Further, our article acknowl-
edges Arkan’s fury upon the incriminating photographs’ publication, and it is reasonable
to think he would have objected to certain kinds of photos being taken at the outset
and perhaps informed his men accordingly. See Human RigHts watCH, unfinisHed business:
tHe RetuRn of Refugees and disPLaCed PeRsons to bijeLjina 13 (2000), available at http://www.
hrw.org/reports/2000/bosnia/BOSN005.pdf.
7. Lukk & Doubt, supra note 1, at 630.
8. Human RigHts watCH, supra note 6.
9. Kate Milner, Witness to Balkans Bloodshed, bbC news, 24 May 2001, available at http://
news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/1347218.stm.
10. Joshua Lipton, Ron Haviv: Shooting War, 41 CoLum. jouRnaLism ReV. 48 (2002).
11. Vladimir Petrovi´c, Power(lessness) of Atrocity Images: Bijeljina Photos between Perpe-
tration and Prosecution of War Crimes in the Former Yugoslavia, 9 int’L j. tRansit’L just.
367, 373 (2015).
Vol. 38214 HUMAN RIGHTS QUARTERLY
ship with such a program, although Petrovi´c suggests that the incriminating
ones were “an unintended consequence.”12 Our article takes steps toward a
sociological account of this dimension of visual representation’s complexity.
(3) At the time of our article’s submission, the identity of the man in
Haviv’s photograph was unknown, and it did not become public knowledge
until the period for substantive revisions had passed. We are aware that
information about the man has recently been discovered and encourage
the reader to consult the sources to which Haviv refers to learn more about
him. Hajrush Ziberi was an ethnic Albanian from Macedonia and his body
appears to have been thrown into the Drina River, near Bijeljina, some time
after being photographed by Haviv.13 His body was later found in the Sava,
of which the Drina is a tributary, and his identity was discovered with the
help of DNA analysis and social media coverage. He was a few months
short of turning twenty-four.
(4) With regards to our interpretation of the photographic subject’s feel-
ings, we recognize that we cannot be certain what Mr. Ziberi was feeling
as the photograph was taken; neither can the soldiers holding him nor the
photographer capturing his image. Indeed, Mr. Ziberi himself may not have
been fully aware of his feelings in that moment of terror. Nonetheless, we
follow the classical sociologist Max Weber’s suggestion that even in cases
of seemingly irrational action, where typical ways of understanding break
down, a kind of “sympathetic participation” can lead one to “adequately
grasp the emotional context in which the action took place.”14 We attempt
to empathize with the man in light of Haviv’s account of the situation and
the statements of other genocide survivors; when we do this, we imagine
that repressed anger is something this subject is experiencing. This is not to
somehow arrive at a pure understanding of the subject’s consciousness, but
to promote empathic engagement with a shocking photograph the seeing
of which, as commentators like Sontag have noted, does not necessarily
facilitate compassion.15 The careful reader will note that we do not suggest
Haviv took the photograph to further his career.
Haviv concludes his response by affirming that the intention of his
photography is the creation of evidence in order to prevent injustice. While
such motives are compelling, virtuous, and imperative, emphasizing them,
as a response to our paper, misses our work’s point. We set aside Haviv’s
intentions so as to better evaluate the unintended and potentially pernicious
12. Id. at 375.
13. See Potvrđeno: Poznato ime i prezime ˇcovjeka s fotografije, prvi na spisku žrtava (foto),
bPoRtaL.ba, 23 Apr. 2014, available at http://bportal.ba/potvrđeno-poznato-ime-i-prezime-
ˇcovjeka-s-fotografije-prvi-na-spisku-žrtava-foto/.
14. max webeR, eConomY and soCietY: an outLine of inteRPRetiVe soCioLogY 5 (Guenther Roth &
Claus Wittich eds., 1978).
15. susan sontag, on PHotogRaPHY 20 (1977).
2016 Response to Ron Haviv 215
consequences of photographic practice in contexts of political violence and
human rights offenses.
Our article sees the status degradation of Bosniaks, a process through
which their public identities were transformed into subordinate ones vis-à-
vis Serbs, as having been part and parcel of the Serbian genocidal project.
Recognizing that the media can play a powerful role in the status degrada-
tion ceremony, our work considers the potential for photographic witnessing,
regardless of the photographer’s intentions, to be complicit in this process.
It seems to us that the context in which Haviv photographed, as a kind of
temporary embedded photojournalist with Arkan’s Tigers in Bijeljina, makes
his work a useful exemplification for this line of inquiry.
The photograph of the kneeling man makes for a particularly intriguing
case study given that Haviv did not take the photograph in secret, as was the
case with his famous photograph of the solider kicking a murdered civilian,
but intervened in the situation and asked Serbian soldiers to let him take
the photo. Upon request, the Tigers posed with their prisoner and displayed
pistols as evidence of his alleged crime of being a fundamentalist; it is for
this reason that our article compares the photo to a mug shot. Although the
photographer created evidence in this moment, his behavior was quite dif-
ferent from that of a forensic photographer who creates evidence of a crime
scene after the fact. By moving past intentionality in our inquiry, we also
wish to emphasize the more general point that war photographers are rarely
afforded the detached objectivity of the forensic photographer but tend to
be participants, constitutive of the events they capture. Haviv’s photograph
demonstrates this better than most.
As such, we do not see that war photojournalism can by default make
the same claims to evidentiary truth as something like forensic photography,
given the involved way in which the former often bears witness and the
situation’s ability to adjust to the photographer’s presence. This also leaves
war photography more open to alternative, politically salient interpretations
that the photographer did not intend. In Sontag’s skillful prose: “The photog-
rapher’s intentions do not determine the meaning of the photograph, which
will have its own career, blown by the whims and loyalties of the diverse
communities that have use for it.”16 The concern of our work is not so much
Haviv’s intentions as the unanticipated uses of his photographs and their
relevance to processes like status degradation. The story of Haviv’s photog-
raphy’s reception in Serbia in 2002 indicates the variety of meaning with
which his images have since been imbued: during an exhibition, visitors were
allowed to supply their own captions for photographs from the war, which
demonstrated both outright rejection of the visual evidence’s truth as well
16. sontag, RegaRding tHe Pain of otHeRs supra note 2, at 39.
Vol. 38216 HUMAN RIGHTS QUARTERLY
as alternative interpretations.17 Recent sociological work also suggests that
iconic images can and do simultaneously reflect disparate political causes
and thus eschew interpretive fixity.18
We are grateful for Haviv’s interest in our work and his willingness to
commit new details of the events in Bijeljina to scholarly record. In addi-
tion to having replied to the criticisms raised against our original article,
this response has allowed us to state more clearly the aims of our work,
which speak to issues of what it means to bear witness and the limits of war
photojournalism as an evidentiary form. We invite and encourage Haviv as
well as others to further this discussion beyond the pages of this journal.
17. This is depicted in the short documentary film Vivisect, which shows footage of a Serbian
audience’s reaction to Haviv’s images of the war during an exhibition in Novi Sad, Serbia
in 2002. See maRija gajiCki, ViViseCt (Vojvodanka-Regional Women’s Initiative 2003).
18. For a recent example from the Canadian context, see Rima Wilkes & Michael Kehl, One
Image, Multiple Nationalisms: Face to Face and the Siege at Kaneshatà:ke, 20 nations
& nationaLism 481 (2014).