| Summary/Abstract |
Images play an increasingly important role in global politics but pose significant and so far largely unexplored methodological challenges. Images are different from words. They circulate in ever more complex and rapid ways. I argue that the political significance of images is best understood through an interdisciplinary framework that relies on multiple methods, even if they are at times incompatible. I defend such a pluralist approach as both controversial and essential: controversial because giving up a unitary standard of evidence violates social scientific conventions; essential because such a strategy offers the best opportunity to assess how images work across their construction, content and impact. I counter fears of relativism, arguing that the hubris of indisputable knowledge is more dangerous than a clash of different perspectives. The very combination of incompatible methods makes us constantly aware of our own contingent standpoints, thus increasing the self-reflectiveness required to understand the complexities of visual global politics.
|