Blog Post #2, question #2

A scopic regime is used in opposition to the concept that “vision” is universal and is defined by Christian Metz to mean that “there are specific ways of seeing that are manifestations of culture.” The concepts of vision and ways of seeing are extremely topical in our current society – when reading Fleckenstein’s article, the phrase “how one sees is inextricably drawn from what one sees” immediately brought to mind Instagram, Snapchat, and YouTube, all of which are incredibly reliant on the unification of the user’s body and the images they post.

            Just as the way of seeing in the Middle Ages “was a participatory way of seeing that merged viewer and object so that knowing about was inseparable from identifying with”, so too is our way of seeing in 2019. There are hundreds, if not thousands of Instagram and YouTube famous people whose texts are literally their bodies – they make their money and gain their followings by looking a very particular way, and looking that particular way justifies their follower counts and their paychecks. When we watch their videos or scroll through their Instagram profiles, we identify with them – “If I do exactly as they do, I’ll look like them and have what they have” – just as Saint Catherine’s words and works provided an image for other women to identify with.

            In a similar vein, following certain people becomes a signifier of political and moral beliefs. “Knowing about” someone, in this case meaning anything from following a celebrity on twitter to watching a TV show, means you’re identifying with them in some way. Even if you’re only hate-following Kim Kardashian, you’re still identifying yourself in opposition to her – “I’m not that stupid/shallow/vain.”

(Also, I wasn't sure how to tie this in but MAN there's a h*ll of a connection to be made between Saint Catherines fasting as purity and today's cultural obsession with "clean eating" and the equation of thinness with goodness, isn't there?)