Invisibility manifests itself in several ways. First, the paradox of invisibility is that we have to be conscious of the existence of the Other, to render him invisible. A non-existent entity is invisible by definition. Second, this consciousness has to be, what we will call, for lack of a better descriptive term, ‘ghost-visibility’. It is the state of consciousness, not of the person who exists, but rather the ghost that we have generated, constructed and invested with attributes – that may have nothing to do with reality – that will make it convenient for us to render him invisible. A good example is the Dutch newspaper cartoon of the founder of Islam, Mohammed. He was depicted as a much-recognised image of Osama Bin Laden with a bomb in his turban. There was a great debate on whether it was humour or blasphemy or just freedom of expression. It was however none of these. It was a representation of all Muslims as constructed in the imagination of a majority of ‘western’ people. It was given the attributes that did not exist, since bombs did not exist in 7th century, Mohammad’s lifetime, nor did Arabs of his region wear turbans, nor does Osama Bin Laden represent the profile of the one and a half billion Muslims in this world. Their profiles are as varied as those of any other community, for example: Christians. The result of such construction is that we cease to see an individual as he is, but only the ghost that we made of him (or all members of the group that we chose him to represent). A whole nation or continent can accept these images as that of ghosts they fear most. The immediate fallout, as we see almost every day, is that any person who seems to be Asian, has a beard or name that seems Muslim (the ignorance of the names is enormous, since Arab Christians, Jews, and even Hindus – like Choudhary, Amin, Patel etc., share the same names), or even speaks what sounds like Arabic (it could well be Persian, Urdu, Hindi or Turkish) is seen as a Muslim and hence a potential terrorist. There is no evidence or justification for such a suspicion across so wide a spectrum of nations and peoples. Ralph Ellison relates the experience of just such an invisibility of the blacks in America with great insight in his incredible novel ‘The Invisible Man’
Then there is the invisibility of the subaltern. The ‘superior’ group considers the security, aspirations, opinions, beliefs, faith, life, even the God (particularly in South Asia), of the ‘other’ group, and by implication its existence, to not only be subordinate but also dependent on the generosity and goodwill of the ‘superior’ group. An example would be the White Supremacy groups or women in many societies. Here the subaltern group is not permitted to express itself and therefore rendered silent and invisible. The idea, particularly in the media, is that if you do not recognise the existence of the group (for eg: Rohingiyas in Myanamar), then you don’t have to deal with their concerns.
The most damaging form of invisibility is a complete and comprehensive negation of the identity and existence as a person, of an individual, because he belongs to a group, which is perceived to be somehow less than human, therefore cannot even be perceived as existent in any intelligent sense. An example is domestic servants. The Merchant-Ivory film ‘Remains of the Day’, is about just such an individual, a butler, who is witness to the intimacies, the follies, and the anti-sematic activities of his master without ever standing in judgement, because he takes the tenet that servants are supposed to be blind and deaf to all but the masters commands, as the guiding principle of his life. The master goes about his most intimate business in the servant’s presence as though he was not present, that is, he is completely invisible.
Invisibility can be imposed on a group as a tool for subjugation or exclusion from the mainstream society or both.
There is also the invisibility that the ‘self-effacing’ individual/group imposes on herself/itself as a tool of defence, in anticipation of being attacked by the dominant group. Anyone who does not agree with the dominant narrative of groups or nations, will have to assess the potential for damage to persons or cause, on standing up to be counted. I can think of Naxalites or Maoists as an example. The dominant narrative has made them into terrorists – one-dimensional evil force – faceless, nameless, personality-less individuals. Hence, guerrilla warfare remains the only alternative. Those who do not subscribe to their ideology can also be named and killed with no other justification required.
Whole nations can become invisible when represented globally by a dictator; the dictator being ‘recognised’ by the dominant powers.
Invisibility then, is both a tool of offence and defence. The problem is, that it is not a choice but an imposition.