Last weekend I was at Transmediale in Berlin, a pathetic spectacle of a crumbling media art/media critique/techno-political conference. Nonetheless, one of the talks by Silvio Lorusso was quite good and it was investigating, among other things, the hidden labor within video calls, the affective consequences of having to be on camera within your domestic space and other consequences of "zoom culture".
This made me think that in some political spaces there's a strong sentiment against using webcams, while in others, holding similar values, there's a strong sentiment against keeping the webcam off.
I believe the first position is mainly stemming from the trauma and discomfort of remote work, where the context of the workplace and your employer extraction of labor make some demands around webcams illegitimate, or extractive. This might not apply to the political context, but the trauma or simply the habit of being hostile towards the webcam demands is still there.
Let me summarize briefly the arguments from both sides:
Against webcams:
- webcams demand you to be presentable and make your space presentable. It's extra labor, especially for women.
- webcams highlight differences in lifestyle and privilege among the participants
- webcams have mild to serious impacts on people with different forms of body and gender dysphoria, alienating people even before they join the space. Also, they distract narcissists from the call.
- for specific activities, visual cues of the reactions of participants might impact the formulation of arguments by specific people, especially if insecure or shy. With the webcam off, you might not be able to read the room but sometimes it's a good thing.
In favor of webcams:
- they create intimacy and a stronger sense of presence. We can debate if this is a good thing at work overall, but it's obviously a good thing in political spaces. There's no collective action without this. they help you read the room and enrich communication, at least for those who are good at doing it.
- they help us position and frame the other person. Probably this should be a "neutral" point, because it enables both positive and negative biases. It depends on your beliefs and if you think that "unbiased=good" or "unbiased=bad".
I would like to hear from you how political organizations you've been have handled this discussion, if they did. How you feel about it. Also, I would like to hear if anybody experienced specific practices around turning the webcam on or off for specific activities, which to me seems an under-explored area, both for production purposes or political purposes.
virtual and blurred backgrounds still signal a lot. Not only they let the viewer know that your environment is not nice, but they also become aware you're somewhat ashamed of it, enough to be willing to hide it.
When people blur the background my only thought is they simply want privacy. It's their personal space so it doesn't need to be presented to everyone. What people do with their home is not my concern.
I think that while there are some who make this assumption, I'm not sure that it's the universal takeaway and it is certainly not a safe assumption at all. I work at a large organization in a department that is nearly 50/50 in person and work from home so most meetings take place online and are attended by people both at the office and in their homes. The work culture is such here that a virtual background is generally considered the professional approach to having your camera on even if you are at the office. The company has even issued several company branded backgrounds for this purpose. We know for a fact that many attendees have very presentable spaces but virtual backgrounds are the norm due to the amount of people attending from shared living spaces or drop-in offices.
Attending meetings with your camera off is also still very common. In fact, I have several co-workers who I didn't recognize in person after working with them for over a year because their company picture was significantly out of date and their cameras were never on during meetings.
"Virtual backgrounds as the norm" is an interesting practice, pretty much like school uniforms erasing difference in class by dressing everybody the same.
This really comes across as if you just keep shifting so that you can continue finding something to complain about. It's ok to just not like having your camera on man. Not everything has to be the kicking off point for a sociological or anthropological study.
Backgrounds visible? It forces you to have your space display worthy!
Backgrounds blurred? Everyone knows your place isn't display worthy and thinks you're a disgusting pig!
Company provided background images? Corporate endorsed removal of individualism!
What you've touched on here is part of the intent. Not that they want to erase individuals, but that in general a more controlled corporate image is seen as more professional.
If you want to talk about how/why that's a thing, be my guest, but that has nothing to do with video conferencing. Work dress code and even work uniforms have existed for generations.