Seeing suffering is not the same as understanding it

Sontag's foundational move is separating the emotional jolt a photograph produces from any actual comprehension of what caused the suffering depicted. A picture of a dead soldier or a starving child can generate an immediate, visceral reaction, but that reaction carries no built-in political or historical content; it doesn't explain who did what to whom, or why. She's pushing back against a comfortable assumption, common among journalists and human rights advocates, that simply putting atrocity in front of people's eyes will convert them into engaged, informed citizens. Sontag argues the opposite is just as likely: people feel briefly moved and then move on, having mistaken the feeling of having witnessed something for the harder work of understanding it.

Takeaway: A powerful image can bypass thought entirely, which is not the same as informing it.