{"title":"The Glitch of Biometrics and the Error as Evasion: The Subversive Potential of Self-Effacement","authors":"C. Campanioni","doi":"10.1353/dia.2020.0028","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract:The effacement or denial of face, which Zygmunt Bauman linked, in 1999, to an absence of identity, should be reevaluated amidst today's biometric apparatus and its optical correction. Responding to David Gauthier and Erin La Cour's observations of the \"problematic event\" and its potential to undermine the archive with the mark of illegibility, I analyze artworks that have addressed error, failure, and glitch to limn connections between contemporary creative strategies and a history of maneuvers by migrants with the goal of becoming imperceptible. In framing my theory of the accidental and authorial breakdown through an examination of tactical countermeasures of evasion, this essay is also a response to the exploitation of information and optic systems within our current migratory drift, wherein biometric practices are enforced at border control checkpoints and during asylum application interviews, admittance to refugee shelters, residence and naturalization processes, and evaluations of eligibility for basic human rights. Informed by critical race studies, gender and sexuality studies, and postcolonialist studies, \"The Glitch of Biometrics\" converges media studies with studies of migration to call for a closer look at how technology legitimizes claims to security, mobility, and community.","PeriodicalId":46840,"journal":{"name":"DIACRITICS-A REVIEW OF CONTEMPORARY CRITICISM","volume":"48 1","pages":"28 - 51"},"PeriodicalIF":0.2000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"DIACRITICS-A REVIEW OF CONTEMPORARY CRITICISM","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1353/dia.2020.0028","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"LITERARY THEORY & CRITICISM","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1
Abstract
Abstract:The effacement or denial of face, which Zygmunt Bauman linked, in 1999, to an absence of identity, should be reevaluated amidst today's biometric apparatus and its optical correction. Responding to David Gauthier and Erin La Cour's observations of the "problematic event" and its potential to undermine the archive with the mark of illegibility, I analyze artworks that have addressed error, failure, and glitch to limn connections between contemporary creative strategies and a history of maneuvers by migrants with the goal of becoming imperceptible. In framing my theory of the accidental and authorial breakdown through an examination of tactical countermeasures of evasion, this essay is also a response to the exploitation of information and optic systems within our current migratory drift, wherein biometric practices are enforced at border control checkpoints and during asylum application interviews, admittance to refugee shelters, residence and naturalization processes, and evaluations of eligibility for basic human rights. Informed by critical race studies, gender and sexuality studies, and postcolonialist studies, "The Glitch of Biometrics" converges media studies with studies of migration to call for a closer look at how technology legitimizes claims to security, mobility, and community.
摘要:Zygmunt Bauman在1999年将人脸的抹去或否认与身份的缺失联系在一起,在当今的生物识别仪器及其光学校正中,应该重新评估。针对David Gauthier和Erin La Cour对这一“有问题的事件”及其可能以难以辨认的标记破坏档案的观察,我分析了一些涉及错误、失败和故障的艺术品,以限制当代创作策略与移民操纵历史之间的联系,目的是变得难以察觉。在通过对规避策略对策的研究来构建我关于意外和作者崩溃的理论时,这篇文章也是对我们当前移民流动中信息和光学系统被利用的回应,在边境管制检查站和庇护申请面谈、进入难民收容所、,居住和入籍程序,以及基本人权资格评估。根据批判性种族研究、性别和性研究以及后殖民主义研究,《生物识别的闪光》将媒体研究与移民研究相结合,呼吁更深入地研究技术如何使安全、流动和社区的主张合法化。
期刊介绍:
For over thirty years, diacritics has been an exceptional and influential forum for scholars writing on the problems of literary criticism. Each issue features articles in which contributors compare and analyze books on particular theoretical works and develop their own positions on the theses, methods, and theoretical implications of those works.