I am still thinking about our discussion of indexicality the other day, particularly the question that Ailee asked about drawing a parallel between virtual/actual and reality/representation through the lens of indexicality. Pulling from a reading (Ch. 2 of Digital ANnthropology by Horst and Miller, which we read Ch.1 of) by Tom Boellstorff that has helped me understand the concept better, he emphasizes that indexicality collapses the gap between the virtual and actual, but does not “blur” (Boellstorff uses blurring and ‘converging’ interchangeably) it. It seems to me that Boellstorff means that the virtual and actual both rely on these “constitutive gaps” to even exist, however indexicality is a way to understand how some ideas, meanings, and relationships traffic between the two. To connect this to the reality/representation discussion, I think that this way of conceptualizing indexicality would mean that there is some separation between the two in order for them to exist and that the representation, which may or may not always index the reality, can only be understood through context. The reality that it points to is the context. Considering Mitchell again, I think that this would mean that the exhibition of Cairo can only be understood because it points to a real Cairo that already exists. To bring this back to our reading and discussion this week, the images we see of tape on the ground are significant because of the context that they point back to, the pandemic.
One thing that I am still thinking about is the second half of Ailee’s comment about reality and representation “pointing back” at each other. Is indexicality a two way street? I guess I am wondering if any way the index contextualizes or adds meaning to the referent. To begin to answer my own question, Boellstorff references Daniel Miller’s work on Facebook, and explains that messages over Facebook have effects on the relationship. I am still wondering if the Orientalist view of distinct separation between reality and representation completely ignores indexicality.
Grace, I’m so glad that you read that second chapter and commented on it here. Your post captures the argument very well and makes an excellent application to the “gap” between representation and reality that Mitchell describes. Interestingly, in Boellstorff’s work it is not so “peculiar.” At any rate, at the time the Orientalist view developed, I think, it was setting up a way of knowing that would enable us to claim that a photograph or video contains the truth in itself because it is indexical. (Whereas words are not.) We saw the consequences of that in the failed prosecution of the LA police.
I hope others read your post since we heave been discussing indexicality, but the idea of the “constitutive gap” hasn’t come up since we read the first chapter several weeks ago.