tracy@hcrvx1.UUCP (Tracy Tims) (01/13/85)
I have for some time wondered what "degrading" meant. I think there
are at least two things being talked about, one of which I find more important
than the other. The first is the resentment that people feel when a spiritual
act is reduced to entertainment or curiosity, and the second is the real
propagandic influence of images on people's behaviour.
In the first case, a group of people can be highly insulted when
another group rips off one of their rituals and "trivializes" it by focussing
on the least essential and least spiritual aspects. It tends to remove the
legitimacy of the original spiritual act and can be construed as a "cultural
attack." The first group of people will talk about the "degradation" of the
ritual.
In the second case, a ritual (or image) actively works to change the
way people think and act. This is the function of propaganda. Propaganda
tries to deny the ability of a person to make up their own mind based on more
or less rational criteria. Propaganda tries to short circuit rational and
moral thought in order to *compel* attitudes and behaviours. In cases where
an image of a ritual acts to change the attitudes towards the ritual to less
socially desirable ones one can say that this is a degradation of the ritual.
Both of these features are present in the discussion of pornography.
There are types of "pornography" which are claimed to be degrading mainly
because they see the ritual of sex as less spiritual than some people would
like it to be. There are types of pornography which exhibit a propagandic
effect regarding some truly socially undesirable behaviours. (Or, if the
effect is not propagandic, it is at least condoning.)
I take much more seriously criticisms of the second sort. In the
second sort, we are dealing with the condoning and advocacy of behaviours
that we generally agree are socially wrong (child sex, rape, brutal treatment
of people, violence). In the first sort we are dealing with a matter of
taste and judgement.
Generally it is possible for people of sensitivity to avoid insulting
groups by trivializing their rituals. In many cases (like the adaptation of
native Indian dances to crass entertainment) there is no good reason for
adapting a ritual as entertainment. But in the case of sex, *no particular
culture invented the idea*. The idea of sex wasn't stolen from anyone and
trivialized. What we have are differing, legitimate views of what it should
be.
If live sex on stage insults you because it degrades sex, realize
what it is that is happening. Your views of sex are being questioned and
perhaps insulted. You do not have any justification to claim that your views
are correct. Be secure and allow other people to treat sex as something
different from your own ideas.
It is possible to claim that your particular views of sex are socially
desirable and thus you place this particular "degradation" of sex into the
second class. You are going to need good, well reasoned arguments for this
one. Playing with cultural relativity is hard ball. In general I find that
people who assume that their own cultural attitudes are the most desirable
are pretty close minded and intolerant. I think that this particular attitude
stems from fear and insecurity: a less than mature response to the criticism
impled by non-agreement.
I believe that two people can look at the same picture, and one can
find the effect entertaining, and the other can find the effect propagandic.
In other words, erotic and pornographic. The effect (obviously we are talking
about the middle ground and not highly propagandic or highly neutral works)
depends on the mental health and awareness of the person looking at the
picture. It is quite possible for a healthy individual to make a distinction
between images designed to sexually excite him/her, and real people; just as
it is possible for a healthy individual to make distinctions between heroes
and heroines in adventure stories that are designed to excite them, and the
people they meet in real life.
J.P. Sartre said "There are no omens." What he was saying was that
even if there were omens (clues about the future) we would interpret them
any bloody way we chose, so they would be useless as omens in any case. This
is true in general. A sick individual is capable of "degrading" almost
anything.
If we spend our time confusing these two issues in pornography we
will seriously dilute our attention to the more important, second type of
phenomenon. That would be a tragedy.
Tracy Tims {linus,allegra,decvax}!watmath!...
Human Computing Resources Corporation {ihnp4,utzoo}!...
Toronto, Ontario, Canada. 416 922-1937 ...hcr!hcrvx1!tracystan@hou2f.UUCP (S.GLAZER) (01/15/85)
Tracy's explainations on attitudes are quite plausable and acceptable with regard to the discussions here on degradation, sex and pornography. I would further qualify, however, her findings that "... people who assume that their own cultural attitudes are the most desireable are pretty close minded and intolerant" would relate only to those who try to place those attitudes on others and not to those who keep such thoughts self contained. Further, Tracy states that"... this particular attitude stems from fear and insecurity: a less than mature response to the criticism implied by non-agreement." Fear and insecurity could be an inmature response to criticism. This however, does not reflect fear and insecurity derived from past experiences (near term knowledge) or from history (long term knowledge). Try, for example, to tell the American Indians that their fear of loosing their cultural attitudes (which I am quite sure they feel is desireable) is an inmature act of insecurity. The fact that any cultural minority group retains those cultural attitudes is proof that they feel those attitudes are the most desireable for them. The fact that they continue to be a minority group is proof that others, by non-agreement, do not accept that view. If that minority group is critised for those attitudes, then depending on the extent and form of the criticism, there may indeed be a valid and mature basis for their fear and insecurity. Stan Glazer AT&T-Bell Labs, Holmdel, NJ hou2f!stan
mer@drusd.UUCP (RenquistME) (01/15/85)
Say wot??