Essay 3 scorekeeping in a pornographic language game
| Abstract | If, as many suppose, pornography changes people, a question arises as to how.1 One answer to this question offers a grand and noble vision. Inspired by the idea that pornography is speech, and inspired by a certain liberal ideal about the point of speech in political life, some theorists say that pornography contributes to that liberal ideal: pornography, even at its most violent and misogynistic, and even at its most harmful, is political speech that aims to express certain views about the good life, 2aims to persuade its consumers of a certain political point of view—and to some extent succeeds in persuading them. Ronald Dworkin suggests that the pornographer contributes to the ‘moral environment, by expressing his political or social convictions or tastes or prejudices informally’, that pornography ‘seeks to deliver’ a ‘message’ , that it reflects the ‘opinion’ that ‘women are submissive, or enjoy being dominated, or should be treated as if they did’, that it is comparable to speech ‘advocating that women occupy inferior roles’.3 Pornography on this view is political speech that aims to persuade its listeners of the truth of certain ideas about women, and of course ‘the government must leave to the people the evaluation of ideas’.4 Another answer offers a vision that is not grand and noble, but thoroughly reductive. Pornography is not politically persuasive speech, but speech that works by a process of psychological conditioning. This view seems common enough in the social science literature. Consider, for example, this description of an early experiment, from a time that pre-dates contemporary political debate. | |||||||||
| Keywords | No keywords specified (fix it) | |||||||||
| Categories | ||||||||||
| Options |
|
|||||||||
Download options| PhilPapers Archive |
Upload a copy of this paper Check publisher's policy on self-archival Papers currently archived: 5,875 |
| External links |
  Try with proxy. |
| Through your library | Only published papers are available at libraries |
Similar books and articlesNicole Wyatt (2009). Failing to Do Things with Words. Southwest Philosophy Review 25 (1):135-142.
Melinda Vadas (1992). The Pornography / Civil Rights Ordinance V. The BOG: And the Winner Is...? Hypatia 7 (3):94 - 109.
Alisa L. Carse (1995). Pornography: An Uncivil Liberty? Hypatia 10 (1):155 - 182.
Ishani Maitra (2009). Silencing Speech. Canadian Journal of Philosophy 39 (2):pp. 309-338.
Alisa L. Carse (1999). Pornography's Many Meanings: A Reply to C. M. Concepcion. Hypatia 14 (1):101-111.
Lynne Tirrell (1999). Pornographic Subordination: How Pornography SIlences Women. In Claudia F. Card (ed.), Feminist Ethics and Politics. University Press of Kansas.
Mari Mikkola (2008). Contexts and Pornography. Analysis 68 (300):316-320.
Mari Mikkola (2011). Illocution, Silencing and the Act of Refusal. Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 92 (3):415-437.
Nellie Wieland (2007). Linguistic Authority and Convention in a Speech Act Analysis of Pornography. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 85 (3):435 – 456.
Daniel I. A. Cohen (1994). The Hate That Dare Not Speak its Name: Pornography Qua Semi-Political Speech. Law and Philosophy 13 (2):195 - 239.
Analytics
Monthly downloads |
Added to index2009-01-28Total downloads62 ( #15,512 of 556,837 )Recent downloads (6 months)2 ( #39,010 of 556,837 )How can I increase my downloads? |
My notes
Discussion
