Torture Pornopticon: (In)security Cameras, Self-Governance and Autonomy

In Linnie Blake & Xavier Aldana Reyes (eds.), Digital Horror: Haunted Technologies, Network Panic and the Found Footage Phenomenon. I.B. Tauris. pp. 29-41 (2015)
Abstract
‘Torture porn’ films centre on themes of abduction, imprisonment and suffering. Within the subgenre, protagonists are typically placed under relentless surveillance by their captors. CCTV features in more than 45 contemporary torture-themed films (including Captivity, Hunger, and Torture Room). Security cameras signify a bridging point between the captors’ ability to observe and to control their prey. Founded on power-imbalance, torture porn’s prison-spaces are panoptical. Despite failing to encapsulate contemporary surveillance’s complexities (see Haggerty, 2011), the panopticon remains a dominant paradigm within surveillance studies because it captures essential truths about the psychologies of self-governance and interdependency. This chapter will use torture porn’s panoptical spaces and captor-captive relationships as a springboard into examining those broader philosophical issues regarding selfhood. In the torture-space, cameras signify the control to which captives must submit. Since they are threatened with death, the surveillance dynamic appears to entirely subjugate these prisoners. However, the captive must undertake some agency in the oppression. Much of the captor’s implied threat is enacted by the captives, who brutalise one another to save themselves. The captor’s apparent omniscience is translated into omnipotence only because the captives forsake self-control – opting to engage in violent, contra-social behaviours – out of fear. Thus, it is implied that self-ownership is the bedrock of stable, interdependent sociality. To inspire horror, the opposite is depicted: fractured groups comprised of paranoid, self-invested individuals. By submitting to external pressure, these “weak” individuals empower their tormentor. Captives are not only encouraged to enact their own suppression, but also to internalise culpability for the suffering they undergo. Despite being threatened with erasure, torture porn’s protagonists are spotlighted in these films. Abductees dominate the screen-time, and their suffering drives the narrative forward. Torturers are often motivated solely by their victims’ agony. In many cases, torture is designed specifically for each hyper-individualised captive. These forms of emphasis imply that captives are the stimulus for their own victimisation. The captor’s exaggerated interest in the prisoners is perversely flattering: captives are implied to be worthy of the captor’s maniacal attention, which is reified by the CCTV cameras. In torture porn’s scenarios, it is not immediately clear who has greater control over the individual: the captor or the captive themselves. By dissecting how self-preservation, self-governance, and self-centredness manifest in torture porn, this chapter seeks to examine the dialectical qualities of liberty, interdependency and autonomy.
Keywords Autonomy  Panopticon  Self-Governance  Horror film  Popular Culture  Torture Porn  Film-philosophy
Categories (categorize this paper)
Reprint years 2016
Options
 Save to my reading list
Follow the author(s)
Edit this record
My bibliography
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Mark as duplicate
Request removal from index
Revision history
Download options
Our Archive
External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library
References found in this work BETA

No references found.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles
The Lexicon of Offense: The Meanings of Torture, Porn, and ‘Torture Porn”.Steve Jones - 2012 - In Feona Attwood, Ian Hunter, Vincent Campbell & Sharon Lockyear (eds.), Controversial Images: Media Representations on the Edge. Palgrave-Macmillan. pp. 186-200.
Understanding Torture.J. Jeremy Wisnewski - 2010 - Edinburgh University Press.
When Is Torture Right?D. McCready - 2007 - Studies in Christian Ethics 20 (3):383-398.
Terrorism and Torture.Fritz Allhoff - 2005 - In Timothy Shanahan (ed.), International Journal of Applied Philosophy. Open Court. pp. 121-134.
Feminist Approaches to Religion and Torture.Christine E. Gudorf - 2011 - Journal of Religious Ethics 39 (4):613-621.
Just Torture?Shunzo Majima - 2012 - Journal of Military Ethics 11 (2):136-148.
Torture, Power, and Law.David Luban - 2014 - Cambridge University Press.
Does Torture Work?John W. Schiemann - 2015 - Oxford University Press USA.
Why Is Torture Wrong?O. Kenneth R. Himes - 2011 - Journal for Peace and Justice Studies 21 (2):42-55.
Why Is Torture Wrong?Kenneth R. Himes - 2011 - Journal for Peace and Justice Studies 21 (2):42-55.
Terrorism and Torture.Fritz Allhoff - 2003 - International Journal of Applied Philosophy 17 (1):121-134.
Added to PP index
2015-11-03

Total downloads
128 ( #41,431 of 2,210,740 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
12 ( #30,374 of 2,210,740 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Monthly downloads
My notes
Sign in to use this feature