Scorekeeping in a pornographic language game

Australasian Journal of Philosophy 77 (3):303 – 319 (1999)
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 (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1080/00048409912349061
 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

Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 32,634
Through your library
References found in this work BETA

No references found.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA
Silencing Speech.Ishani Maitra - 2009 - Canadian Journal of Philosophy 39 (2):pp. 309-338.
Linguistic Authority and Convention in a Speech Act Analysis of Pornography.Nellie Wieland - 2007 - Australasian Journal of Philosophy 85 (3):435 – 456.

View all 12 citations / Add more citations

Similar books and articles
D. Z. Phillips on the Grammar of "God".Anselm K. Min - 2008 - International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 63 (1-3):131 - 146.
Meinongian Scorekeeping.Vojko Strahovnik - 2005 - In Alfred Schramm (ed.), Meinong Studien. De Gruyter. pp. 309-330.
Liberal Pornographic Rights.Pilhong Hwang - 2003 - International Journal of Applied Philosophy 17 (2):225-240.
Scorekeeping in a Defective Language Game.Kevin Scharp - 2005 - Pragmatics and Cognition 13 (1):203-226.
The 'Fine Art' of Pornography?Christopher Bartel - 2010 - In Dave Monroe (ed.), Porn: Philosophy for Everyone. Wiley-Blackwell. pp. 153--65.
Scorekeeping in a Language Game.David Lewis - 1979 - Journal of Philosophical Logic 8 (1):339--359.
Added to PP index

Total downloads
317 ( #11,852 of 2,236,187 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
11 ( #42,840 of 2,236,187 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Monthly downloads
My notes
Sign in to use this feature