Tom Hartley asked: Given the highly charged atmosphere that tends to surround sexual matters, it is likely that people will object to both the pro- and anti-censorship arguments that are to follow. Thus I will, on occasion, wear a fool’s cap for purposes of self-protection. Humor can serve as a prophylactic, a shield against accusations of being too preachy. Resorting to comedy can be cowardly, as when what ought to be discussed openly has instead taken guilty refuge in jokes, mockery or sarcasm, but it is essential that we can joke around while grappling with the sordid past of pornography and the messy debate about the obscene. Some say that it is permissible to talk about sex and even to show it in pictures, as long as this is done for a ‘serious purpose.’ But laughter helps to discharge some of the incredible tension in this arena. There is always room for more courageous comedic figures and gestures, as when Germaine Greer stood in front of a crowd holding a banana and demanding satisfaction.[i] Light-hearted self-deprecation can prevent polemical posturing, reminding us to not take things too seriously and to recognize the ridiculous contradictions within our own lives. Henri Bergson dryly theorizes that a laugh is the result of an absurd contrast between two independent series of events that collide producing two entirely different meanings simultaneously. In such moments of mirth personal, spiritual and psychological growth can occur along with mental and physical pleasure or relief. Thus if we have the will, and can temporarily suspend our moral judgments, humor can serve as an antidote to dogmatism.
My personal interests and concerns with the questions and issues surrounding pornography are reflected in the way my writing expands here and contracts there in seemingly arbitrary fashion. Some shocking, confusing, even contradictory things will be said: you will hear the language of prudery and prurience echoed in the murmurings of lust and love. We will explore the convoluted histories of erotica and obscenity, for then we are less likely to make naive absolutist claims and are more tolerant of the opinions of others. There are many perspectives worth considering and each gives us a better chance at restoring some of the lost sacredness of sex. Let us revise our individual and collective understanding of the sensual body and sexual consciousness. But before dealing with dauntingly complex arguments about erotica and obscenity I intend to highlight the major issues surrounding the debate over pornography and its censorship, the character of the players and the quality of their play. The game should be fun, but it quickly gets serious; if moralists and hedonists agree on one thing it is that sex has the power to destroy as well as to create, perhaps civilizations as well as reputations.
To understand the abuses of obscenity we should scrutinize both porn and its censorship, to observe the profanation of not only of human sexuality but also of our sexual rights and freedoms. The outcome of any public debate over the uses of obscenity and abuses of erotica both reflects and reinforces a particular vision of humanity, a distinct ideological stance regarding sexual mores, laws and standards.
Sex is a great part of what it means to be alive and the tiniest detail of life can be connected to the interrelationship of living energies symbolized by the erotic: “everything that people do is connected with ‘sex’: politics, religion, art, the theater, music, is all ‘sex’.”[ii] We are hardwired to respond to sexual stimulus and to enjoy pleasure. Our highly evolved cortex enables us to create and enjoy sexy images and language. This in turn expands our capacity for experiencing and expressing our human nature. Apart from its connection with reproduction and pleasure, ‘sex’ is also an avenue of deep connection with other people. To a large degree we define ourselves in the way that we manage our sexual relationships. Not only our body but also our mind, our personality, even our soul is inextricably linked with our sexual self in ways that can be malignant or benign. Likewise, pornography and the dialogue surrounding it and its censorship is part of a powerful and influential social phenomenon that can be organic, personalized, civilized and soulful, or else dehumanizing and destructive, the critical factor being the attention and care we bring to the matter.
Here the abbreviated term ‘porn’ is used in a neutral sense [iii] to denote any material, written, pictorial, sculptural or whatever, regardless of its aesthetic, moral or legal status, as long as it is overtly sexual. Although common usage often equates porn with obscenity the former can refer to just about any sexualized cultural artifact, including what I might think is erotica or what you might deem obscene (or the other way around), whereas the latter specifically refers to something that is offensive to community standards. The constellation of images and objects that can be considered porn has consistently proven to be hard to define (and even harder to control). Ultimately there are simply descriptions and depictions of sex, some erotic and some obscene, some with scientific, literary, artistic or other merit and some without any apparent redeeming qualities. Depending upon your perspective, the content, context and a wide range of other criteria, porn can be erotic or obscene or somewhere in between.
Similarly we typically view the history of porn in positive or negative terms. Either as a matter of evolution or of degradation, depending upon whether we emphasize the need to adapt to changing conditions or else focus on the need for continuity in terms of basic sexual mores, definitions of the obscene and the erotic, and the way we use words, images, and other shared symbols and cultural meanings. Both lines of thought are essential to understanding the issue but both also pose problems: radical lawfulness is as limiting as is radical non-conformism. When we condemn or condone porn, when our primary concern is to attack obscenity or defend erotica, we are predominately either Conservative or Liberal in our world-view. Midway between these two points of view stands a third.
To use the analogy of a game the golden mean is the ideal “umpire”[iv] who enforces the rules but tries, however unsuccessfully, to not interfere with the flow of the game [v][vi] This flow, as many spiritualists and even ‘atheists’[vii] envision, involves two contrary yet complementary life-promoting, ruling forces. The goal of the game is the reconciliation of essential dualities (i.e. mind/body). Specifically, the early Greeks associated the rational Conservative force with Apollo and the knowledge of causality and order, and the vital Liberal force was represented by Dionysus and the pleasure of chaos. Prometheus was the umpire whose wisdom and humanity symbolized a creative synchronization or balance of the other two positions. Wisdom considers ambiguity and paradox not as an obstacle but as a positive thing in itself, an opportunity to reconcile soul-splitting dichotomies.
Understandably we tend to judge porn users according to the worst of them, and we likewise assess the debate about porn in terms of its most extreme participants whose legal definitions, moral descriptions and self-interested promotions often approach the fanatical. As Eric Hoffer, a fanatic about fanatics, puts it, the game of history is usually played by the best and the worst over the heads of the majority in the middle[viii]; that is, the average person is shaped by minorities at each end of the social spectrum, by the superior individual in politics, literature, science, commerce or industry, who plays a large role in shaping a nation, and by those at the other extreme, the failures, misfits, outcasts, criminals. This fallacious exclusion of the middle ground philosophically limits our choices and slants the argument by presenting ready answers that preclude all independent thought. We face equally abhorrent either-ors, and attempt problem solving using only circular techniques that pre-determine the nature of the solutions.[ix] Alternately being pilloried or praised, according to the political will of the moment, sexual expression is made out to be something distinctly different from the rest of the myriad
forms of relating and existing. Cognitive categories and oppositions help us make meaning of the world, but when the debate over porn degenerates into hermetically isolated monologues we are prevented from ever achieving a collective sense of the true, the good and the beautiful within our culture and within ourselves. The absence of any kind of structuralized picture of not only sexuality but also of the world at large undercuts our ability or willingness to take part in the debate and reinforces our reliance upon others to impose order on our sexuality. Will the winner be Eros or Thanatos?
Many of us are familiar with the many sexually explicit narratives and images commonly found in porn. But what do we really mean when we loudly condemn or silently applaud? Is the Classical Priapus[x] a crude relic from an uncivilized past or a potent male fertility image? Depending upon one’s definition, a Playboy centerfold, Goya’s Venus de Milo and bare breasted natives in National Geographic might all be considered equally obscene. And what is meant by real or depicted harm? If real harm is portrayed, does that mean that someone’s freedoms were violated or did they consent to being abused? If the harm depicted is not real, could its depiction still cause real harm to someone else? If laws are broken in the production of a picture or movie, are the pictures, such as those depicting actual murders, suicides, traffic violations or drug use, in and of themselves illegal to view? How are we supposed to legislate against fictionalized crime? Are we more concerned with sex than violence, and is one type of graphic material more harmful than another? Is porn free expression or harmful diversion? Are there legitimate depictions of sexual organs and acts for artistic purposes? Do we really need laws to restrict ‘dirty’ words and images or does censorship do more damage than good? In the absence of restrictions, would porn actually cause any of these harms? American Supreme Court Justice Stewart Potter was justly ridiculed for saying he cannot literally define obscenity but he knows it when he sees it-yet he did inadvertently help spawn discussion about how criminality must be based upon clearly articulated principles and not upon the basis of blind impulse.
In trying to determine what is appropriate in terms of the consumption and display of porn it is imperative that we take risks and participate in the public forum on sexuality since many moral and legal issues now confront us, especially in the realm of digital porn. The central question here is not simply whether the free availability of porn in society has harmful consequences, nor how government should function in regulating it, nor even whether the whole point is moot given the advent of the world-wide-web. What is more important is whether we are inhibited in our ability to use ‘good’ porn (i.e. the erotic) in the sense of a communal artifact, and whether we are able to participate in public arguments over the how and why of censoring ‘bad’ porn (i.e. the obscene). Enjoying erotica, listening to the censorship debate, or actively arguing over obscenity, are all modes of political expression and are part of a larger dialogue regarding cultural values. We rely upon such discourses for attaining and maintaining democratic principles, and they serve as a yardstick by which we measure our success. In many societies, the notion of being accountable to posterity is at the heart of the entire moral system, and we too owe it to future generations to participate in the debate. So as umpires we will now attempt to negotiate the middle way, the synthesis that reconciles traditional values of reason and organization (the thesis) and progressive values of feeling and freedom (the antithesis). Regardless of which of the three roles (the Conservative, the Liberal or the Umpire) we end up playing, what matters, or what ought to matter most for us, are the victims of obscenity who suffer harm[xi]-harm being a concept that must be negotiated not only within the boundaries of the law, but also in terms of biology, psychological, sociology and spirituality.
In all discussion of sexuality and of what constitutes normal sexual behavior there is “no truth independent of power relations, no truth without a politics of truth”.[xii] Yet as an artifact porn predates any political attempts at regulation; it is ephemeral and ubiquitous because ‘sex’ is a quintessentially human experience involving every conceivable aspect of awareness and is one of our greatest preoccupations. Eroticism is presumably even older than prostitution and explicit depictions of sexual organs and behavior, obscene or otherwise, can be found throughout history. Stylized representations of large penises and buxom women presumably had not only a functional role-sometimes even as dildos and masturbatory aids-but also served a structural purpose. Such artifacts help to define a culture, perhaps positively, as in the case of fertility symbols, or negatively, as when they signify depravity and obscenity. Uncovering the significance of porn, ancient or otherwise, clearly requires a balanced consideration of conflicting views as well as the humility necessary to learn from the past.[xiii]
History shows that we forget old victories and defeats in the censorship debate. Walter Kendrick[xiv] argues that we keep on fighting the same old battles “incessantly”[xv] because the issue of porn has never been openly addressed. Perhaps there are no final answers since the ethics of both porn and its censorship are complicated, in part, because the scientific and legal facts keep changing. However, basic questions still need to be addressed by outspoken and open-minded people in freethinking and personal, creative and even humorous dialogue. Walter Lippmann notes that it is “not possible to be indifferent”[xvi] about important issues like divorce, contraception, monogamy, and prostitution. Likewise with porn, we cannot just abstain from judgment, though we can withhold it. We can dismiss the issue saying “I do not know about it,” “live and let live,” “I am sickened and angered by it,” “I profit by it,” “I enjoy it.” Or we can feel threatened, puzzled, intimidated or intrigued by porn, sometimes even simultaneously. We can insist that the law should not enforce any restrictions whatsoever, or argue strenuously for more censorship. Either way, as George Orwell says, “it’s difficult to discuss obscenity because people are afraid of appearing either scandalized or not scandalized enough”.[xvii] There is an urge to identify with one group or another because otherwise we fear getting caught in the crossfire. Polarization leads to incessant squabbling, not debate and resolution, and when a single aspect of life, our sexuality in this case, bears the full force of a major ideological battle, the results are truly obscene.
FOOTNOTES
[i] [ii] (Ouspensky, 1949) p. 254
[ii] (COP) The COP report used the term ‘obscene’ to refer to the objective legal concept of what is prohibited depending upon who did what to who, when, where and how. The word ‘pornography’ was not generally used because it denotes a subjective appraisal of the material in question according to notions of merit and value
[iii] (Kirk, 1982) believes our government should act as an umpire over the people: “its role is not to impose beliefs and activities, nor to tutor or educate them, not to make them better or happier in another way, not to direct them, to galvanize them into action, to lead them or to coordinate their activities so that no occasion of conflict shall occur; the office of government is merely to rule” 589
[iv] (Kirk, 1982) “the law is not concerned with concrete persons, but with activities; and with activities only in respect of their propensity to collide with one another. It is not concerned with moral right and wrong…but to keep peace” 593
[v] (Szasz, 1983) “Human actions should be interfered with or constrained only when those actions violate the freedom of others, or when interference is requested” 25
[vi] (Lippmann, 1929) interestingly ‘atheist’ originally meant not one who was defiantly against religion but rather one who worshipped god inwardly in their own way p. 27
[vii] (Hoffer, 1951)
[viii] (Pearce, 1973) the reality-shaping function of the mind that automatically fills the empty categories in between polar opposites, Pearce
[ix] (Miles, 1997) huge phalluses were often considered good luck symbols p. 120
[x] (Copp, 1983) justified paternalism is predicated on the harm principle, what Mill calls ‘definite damage,’ especially where porn affects innocent third parties, those other than the producers and consumers
[xi] (Lacombe, 1994) p. 13
[xii] (Roszak, 1973) we also need to be aware that our reactions might stem from arrogance and modern notions of progress that “make nothing so unthinkable as the proposition that pre-modern predecessors or contemporaries could have anything to teach that is humanly valuable” p. 5
[xiii] (Hunt, 1993 ) Hunt helpfully sums up Kendrick’s position of having “attributed the invention of porn to the conjunction of two very different events at the end of the eighteenth and during the early decades of the nineteenth century: the creation of ’secret museums’ for objects classified as pornographic; and the growing volume of writing about prostitution” p. 12
[xiv] (Kendrick, 1987)”we have fought ignorant battles in the name of morality in the past…[ but] we ought not to be so stupid as to believe we must fight them again”
[xv] (Lippmann, 1929)
[xvi] (Arcand)
[xvii]
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Arcand, B. The Jaguar and the Anteater.
COP. , The Report of the Commission on Obscenity and Pornography.
Copp, D. a. (1983). Pornography and Censorship. Buffalo, NY: Prometheus.
Hoffer, E. (1951). True Believers: Thoughts on the Nature of Mass Movements. Harper & Row.
Hunt, L. (1993 ). The Invention of Pornography: Obscenity and the Origins of Modernity, 1500-1800. New York, NY : Zone .
Kendrick, W. (1987). The Secret Museum .
Kirk, R. (1982). The Portable Conservative Reader. Markham, Ont. Canada: Penguin.
Lacombe, D. (1994). Blue Politics: Pornography and the Law in the Age of Feminism. Toronto, Ontario: U of Toronto Press.
Lippmann, W. (1929). A Preface to Morals . Time Magazine Publications .
Miles, C. w. (1997). Love in the Ancient World. Weudenfeld & Nicolson .
Ouspensky, P. D. (1949). In Search of the Miraculous: Fragments of an Unknown Teaching . New York : Harcourt, Brace & World .
Pearce, J. C. (1973). The Crack in the Cosmic Egg: Challenging Constructs of Mind and Reality . Simon & Schuster .
Roszak, T. (1973). Where The Wasteland Ends: Politics and Transcendence in Postindustrial Society . Garden City, NY: Anchor Doubleday & Co.
Szasz, T. (1983). Primary Values and Major Contentions: ed. Vatz, Richard E. and Lee S. Weinberg. New York, NY: Prometheus .
Ronald
