The Collapse of Documentary Photography and the Reconstruction of Subjectivity — A Critical Reflection on My Own Documentary Photography

Introduction — Do Images Bear Ethics?

            Looking back on my early documentary photographs and my writing in social aesthetics, I once harbored a naïve faith: that documentary photography possessed an ethical force—that images do not merely convey facts but can stir the viewer’s ethical judgment. Especially when confronted with “a conflict between the justice and the justice,” the photograph seemed to stage a visualized tragic arena, compelling the viewer to choose within an inescapable ethical impasse and to reflect on the consequences of free will. In my mind, this structure formed the core value of documentary: it not only documents reality but summons human freedom.

            Yet when I re-examine that period—its thought, writing, and practice—and when I return my gaze to the belief that treats the image as an ethical arena, the loosening of that belief is not a sentimental disillusionment but a deepening philosophical question: “does viewing itself bear ethical force, or is such judgment an illusion pre-formatted by the very structures of viewing?” This question compels me to revisit three premises—— “who the viewer is,” “where viewing takes place,” and “how meaning is generated.” My re-examination constitutes the fundamental motive for my turn from documentary photography toward a narrative of images grounded in “différance”.

The Ethical Hypothesis of Viewing: The Structure of Freedom in Documentary Photography

            Within my earlier aesthetic framework, I took documentary to be a medium of ethical choice. The photographer chooses and composes within reality, using the image to generate ethical tension; the viewer is then drawn by the photograph’s documented conflict to make moral judgments, thereby establishing one’s own subjectivity. As I once wrote in an essay:

“People must make choices within such conflicts and bear the tragic consequences thereof; and those terrifying consequences best display the power of freedom.” [1]

            In this structure, the ethical subject of freedom is formed in conflict—finding dignity in choice, judgment, and bearing responsibility. Documentary matters because it forces the viewer, before the image, to confront the self.

            But this structure of ethical viewing rests on a strong assumption about the viewing subject—— that the viewer must be able to see, judge, and choose; that they possesses a pre-linguistic intuition enabling them to uncover what the structure has not yet made explicit and to act in a transcendent manner. In other words, the alleged force of documentary photography presupposes a “free visual space.” The question follows: “does such freedom in viewing truly exist, or have structural rules already preset perception and response?”

[1] In that essay — The Gazed-Upon Subject: A Reconstruction of Sartrean Pessimism —
Phenomenological Observations from Intersubjectivity to Linguistic Games (《被凝视的主体：对萨特悲观主义之重构—从主体间性到语⾔游戏的现象学观察》)— I drew on Sartre to set out the basic
stance of existentialist ethics: the individual must assume responsibility for free choice in a situation without presets. My claim that “choice and the bearing of consequences amid conflict reveal the force of freedom” echoes Sartre’s thesis that “man is condemned to be free.” This ethical view emphasizes that the subject generates meaning through decision, which, in my early framework, resonated with the structure of ethical judgment that documentary photography seeks to elicit. Jean-Paul Sartre, Existentialism Is a Humanism, trans. Carol Macomber (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2007).

The Unfreedom of Viewing: The Viewer under Disciplinary Structures and the Fiction of Ethical Choice

            When, borrowing Foucault’s perspective, I reconsider “who the viewer is,” a fundamental paradox of documentary rises to the surface. The viewer is not an idealized, abstract, and neutral free subject; on the contrary, they are subjects produced within discipline. Their ways of viewing, their desire to watch, and even their capacity for ethical judgment are already pre-formatted within a web of power. Foucault’s “micro-powers” are not external oppressions but are embedded in the subject’s very constitution; through mechanisms of discipline (education, media, bodily training, and so on) the individual is shaped into a governed subject. Put differently, ethical judgment is itself an effect of discipline—— a phantasm of freedom constituted within cultural and social contexts. [2]

            Thus, when documentary photography seeks to stage ethical conflict and judgment, the viewer’s choice does not arise from their free will but consolidates and confirms an already constructed subjectivity. The viewer empathizes—— feels anger, grief, pity, or argues—— not because they has recognized the reality narrated by the image, but because they has been disciplined into looking in one way or another. Their judgment then obscures the complexity of reality: viewing becomes the confirmation of meaning rather than an act of liberation.

            In this sense documentary photography falls into a predicament contrary to its intent: what imagines itself as a summons to free judgment sinks into an instrument of discipline. The image does not open the space of viewing; it seals off the possibilities of meaning. The viewer does not transcend his own experience; he is stabilized, within an ethically inflected illusion, as an “ideal subject.”

[2] Foucault articulates the concept of “disciplinary power”, arguing that modern society, through institutionalized mechanisms (such as schools, prisons, the military, and other structural apparatuses), shapes individuals’ bodies and habitual conduct and thereby formats their modes of cognition and judgment. Accordingly, in my view the viewer is not a subject of free judgment but a product of disciplinary structures —— precisely consonant with Foucault’s claim that the subject is not naturally free but is produced within power. I draw on this framework to deconstruct the assumption of freedom that underlies “ethical viewing” in documentary photography.
Michel Foucault, “Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison”, trans. Alan Sheridan (New York: Vintage Books, 1995).

I must therefore admit: the ethical force I once devoutly attributed to documentary photography was a formatted illusion, behind which lay deeper mechanisms of power. This is the root of my turn toward a narrative of “différance”: it no longer seeks to summon judgment but to postponed it; to deconstruct structure; to throw disciplined viewing off balance—so that the possibility of meaning’s generation can be rethought.

The Photographer’s Perspective and the Illusion of Meaning — From Producer of Ideology to Disciplined Subject of Viewing

            If we shift our critical gaze from the viewer to the photographer, documentary photography’s deeper paradox becomes sharper still. The photographer is never a neutral observer. In the instant the shutter is released, a decisive power is exercised: who may enter the frame, in what posture, against what background—— and whom, what background, what posture are permanently excluded. The photographer decides whether conflict appears, whether the ethical is staged. This is precisely the intertwining of knowledge and power: what appears to produce “fact” in documentary photography is in truth the production of “meaning”—— an ideology wearing the mask of reality. [2]

            Nor is that all. The photographer is not merely a wielder of power but also its product. The choice of subject matter, conflict, and visual language is shaped by the viewing structures that have already disciplined them. Their “acumen,” “judgment,” and “ethical responsibility” do not originate in an inner calling of their subjective freedom; but are internalizations produced by ideology —— educational systems, cultural contexts, and the traditions of the image-making. They believes certain phenomenons deserves documentation; that certain “decisive moments” should be preserved. This belief is itself molded by historical context that they are in.             Wittgenstein’s philosophy of language offers an avenue of understanding: meaning is never selfevident; it derives from use. The photographer’s viewing is in this manner similar to the use of

[2] Ibid. Michel Foucault, “Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison”.

language; he does not capture the world in its suchness, but participates in a “language-game” through which meaning is generated. His lens is a practice of semiotics, and its meaning is delimited by the linguistic, cultural, and power-constructed contexts in which it operates. [3] And to observe through Heidegger, documentary’s false neutrality collapses altogether. As “Dasein”, the human being cannot be a spectator detached from the world; existence is always “already in-the-world”, thus its existence has already presupposing a pathway of understanding. How the photographer photographs is not a passive response to reality but the manifestation, in the image, of his own existential structure — the existed structure refused any purity or possibility of free will. [4]

            We must therefore acknowledge a double illusion in the ethical structure of documentary photography —— it mistakes the construction of power to be the free ethical choice, and it mistakes the subject’s production within structure for a summons of free will. Whether in the viewer’s judgment or the photographer’s composition, both are constrained and disciplined by the context they are placed. They do not lead to truth; on the contrary, it continually, within ideology, to stabilize meaning.

            At precisely this point I choose a deconstructive, “différantial” narrative. It no longer requires for judgment and no longer seeks to builds meaning. On the contrary, it continually defers meaning’s arrival, exposes fractures within viewing structures, silences discipline, and unbalances the act of viewing — thereby chiseling out another possibility for viewing: a freedom not yet defined, and still in the generation.

[3] In Wittgenstein’s later philosophy, this is a central thesis: especially in Philosophical
Investigations, he uses the paradigm of “language-games” to show that linguistic meaning arises not from essence but from use within a context (a form of life).
Ludwig Wittgenstein, “Philosophical Investigations”, trans. G. E. M. Anscombe (Oxford: Blackwell, 2009), §§43–47.
[4] Heidegger’s central claim about “Dasein” in “Being and Time” is that human existence is always already embedded in the world; understanding is therefore never a neutral “view from nowhere” but the unfolding of existential structure.
Martin Heidegger, “Being and Time”, trans. Joan Stambaugh (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1996).

The “Différance: of Meaning and the Freedom of Viewing: A Narrative of Images that Deconstructs Ideology

            Suppose the collapse of documentary photography reveals the disciplinary nature of viewing, then the “différantial” narrative of images I propose is my reconstruction amid the ruins. It is not a mere a turn of style — not a reform of aesthetic languages — but a resetting of the ethics of viewing, a rhizome of free will that grows quietly within the seams of structure.

            Jacques Derrida replaces the “e” in the French “différence” with an “a”, generating the concept “différance” — a textual play that seeks to shatter metaphysical illusions of the stability of meaning. [5] As with the disciplinary structures surrounding documentary, we are likewise taught that language “refers,” that it bridges us to meaning. Derrida’s point is that meaning never arrives as an end point; it wavers, is defined by others, and is perpetually deferred. Meaning is constituted in the double movement of “difference” and “delay”.

            In this sense, images in “différance” no longer reveal the existence of a phenomenon, so that as they disclose the ever-shifting relation between the image and the meanings constructed around it. Photography’s “différance”, like that of language, does not self-generate fixed meaning; it finds its place in difference from established structures, ordinary logics, and ideological language, and in its deferral, it refuses immediate interpretation and classification. The image ceases to be a container of meaning and becomes the arena of meaning’s drift. The relation between image and its referent is no longer a one-toone conduit: difference breaks it, deferral unravels it, and what remains is a wasteland outside of structure. In this space, viewing is no longer recognition, nor judgment, but an experience of witnessing the collapse of the generation of meaning — a possibility of coexistence with instability. In this double movement of difference and delay, viewing gains its freedom — not the illusory scene in which a subject stands infront of the image to make emotional and ethical judgments, but a state of viewing stripped of structural authority and the discursive regimes of power. Thus the viewer is no longer summoned to sympathize, not required to judge, nor guided to explain; he is placed instead upon a dance floor without a marked entrance. In a field where meaning never arrives, he must admit that his own experience is no longer secured by structural discourse. In this way a “différantial” image becomes a counter-disciplinary ethics of viewing: it no longer serves language, narrative, or ideology. It renders viewing a free drift — without belonging or destination, and therefore without command and without the compulsion to confirm. [6]

            I must also insist that this freedom of “différance” in viewing is not a nihilistic exile. On the contrary, I seek to redefine a “more fitting documentary”, to address the fractures concealed by the documentary tradition. We must further more distinguish between “the impossibility of true objectivity” and a “more fitting documentary.” That distinction is not paradoxical; it is the very heart of “différance” in viewing. The “objective” foundation by photography has always been an illusion. From the camera’s first construction, what it captured was never an objective world as such but the capture and disciplining of reality by the viewing structures in which the viewer is already situated. “Objective” photography has always masked the viewer’s structural position; it is the product of layered presuppositions — ethical, ideological, and cultural.

By contrast, a “more fitting documentary” emphasizes the subject’s active acknowledgment, within “différance”, of his own limits. One recognizes that viewing always already dwells in the perpetual deferral and difference of meaning. Différantial imagery does not masquerade as a complete representation of the world; it no longer tries to manufacture the meanings the viewing subjectively anticipates. Instead, through delay and difference, it repeatedly breaks pre-set structures and reveals the essential fissure between image and reality. This is not a new objectivity; rather, within the countless

[5] Jacques Derrida, Margins of Philosophy, trans. Alan Bass (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1982), esp. “Différance,”
[6] Roland Barthes proposed what he called the “punctum”: that in the image which resists classification and interpretation, cannot be named, yet strikes directly at the subject’s experience. Barthes’s theory of viewing stands in a complementary relation to Derrida’s
“différance”: if “différance” discloses the ongoing deferral and difference through which meaning is generated, the punctum marks, within the image, the instant of meaning’s thorough collapse. It is precisely in this unspeakble, unclassifiable experience of looking that viewing slips free of structural presets and becomes a free silence and tremor of the subject before the image.
Thus, a viewing in “différance” is not only a posture within the philosophy of language but also an aesthetic possibility: it refuses confirmation and definition, and thereby approaches more closely a reality that has not yet been spoken.

gaps of meaning, it enables one to truly recognize the unbridgeable distance between self and world — and thus to approach his own condition with greater honesty.

            In other words, différance in viewing does not pursue a more perfect or honest reality; but to exposes the continual collapse of viewing structures, allowing the subject to sense the absurdity and instability of the very game of meaning in which they stands. At that moment the viewing subject loosens the preset frames of discipline and meaning, approaching a reality that is continuously generated, changing, and never fixed. In this regard, différantial imagery is truer — and braver— than traditional documentary: it admits the limits of photography and the ignorance of the subject; it refuses to pretend to present a stable, objective, self-evident world. In this field of viewing, “the reality” is not an objectivity to be found or to re-present; it is an unfinished state, endlessly deferred. Such a reality cannot be captured by ethics or ideology, because it is always arriving and never arrived. Only within this ceaselessly deferred viewing do we rediscover the truest distance between subject and world — and the purest free will of the viewing.

Read More