Spectacle: Subjectivity and empowerment.

To me, there seems to be much in parallel between Jane Rhode's discussion of Black Panthers movement and previous class discussion on spectacle of lynching, in that both methods bestow power to the one who seeks to be looked at.

Both Black Panthers and white lynchers used violence and offense as a tool to shape group identity and garner public attention. Towards the end of chapter 4, Rhodes explains how Black Panthers used violent and provocative symbols to manifest their power. Use of weapon is the prominent example of those symbols. Black Panthers, as did postbellum whites by lynching, made themselves as the subject of spectacle by employing violence. This use of violence, symbolized by weapons, not only "represented power and the ability to seize control over one's destiny," but also "… [incited] terror in the white populace" and in turn located the group to the focus of nation-wide media attention (106).

Black Panthers' attempt, however, demonstrates limit of spectacle as a political tactic. By rendering themselves as spectacle, subject to be seen, Black Panthers were able to expose themselves to the wider public beyond Bay Area. However, just like Foucauldian sovereign could not keep the governed from sympathizing with the one being tortured, Black Panthers could not control how viewers' understand and interpret the spectacle. And especially in the racially bifurcated world, the world of "us" versus "them," Black Panthers had no control over white media portrayal of the movement. Excessive violence not only incited fear, but also resulted in contempt against such fearful violence among the white public sphere.