I find the models of spectators that Boltanski describes, very apt for understanding the various characters we assume as we contemplate the tragedies of others. What I don’t yet understand is how these characters are related to particular contexts and circumstances. It seems that there are different versions of the ideal spectator according to the norms of different cultures, some of which have elaborate rituals of ethical posturing, and other which are more straightforward. This seems to be very similar with other traditions of etiquette. In certain subcultures that I have encountered, the expectation of what character to embody is different, for example I might be expected to vocalize concern to a group of my Grandmother’s friends, whereas with my own peers, silence is a better way of communicating sympathy.
I appreciate Boltanski’s characterization of the necessity of a clearly established point of view in any representation of the event, neutrality being akin to cruel disregard. I wonder what it would be like if other spheres of conversation had the same sort of prohibition on description with a seeming lack of point of view. This is particularly true when it comes to the human body. And I would offer the addition point that the reason for this repulsion towards a realism when it comes to the human body is about our sensitivity to the recognition of individual people. Often disasters are spoken about from the perspective of vast groups. Because the significance of these events is correlated to the number of people who are affected by the disaster, the individual is often the last relevant topic, instead, articles concern millions of dollars worth of damage or number of casualties.
Another question this raised for me is whether the balancing of forces, of description vs. personal sentiment or indignation vs. tenderheartedness, might be put out of balance by changes in the distance between tragedy and spectator due to evolving media and technology. I assume that Boltanski is talking about a scenario with internet and telephone, that facilitates the distance of knowledge. Where things considerably different before faster communication over distances? Now that more intensive means of intervention through networking are possible, does this change the obligations of the good samaritan?