Australasian Journal of Philosophy 77 (3):303 – 319 (1999)
AbstractIf, 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.
Similar books and articles
The 'Fine Art' of Pornography?Christopher Bartel - 2010 - In Dave Monroe (ed.), Porn: Philosophy for Everyone. Wiley-Blackwell. pp. 153--65.
Scorekeeping in a Defective Language Game.Kevin A. Scharp - 2005 - Pragmatics and Cognition 13 (1):203-226.
Meinongian scorekeeping.Vojko Strahovnik - 2005 - In Alfred Schramm (ed.), Meinong Studien. De Gruyter. pp. 309-330.
D. Z. Phillips on the Grammar of "God".Anselm K. Min - 2008 - International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 63 (1-3):131 - 146.
Why Hobbes' State of Nature is Best Modeled by an Assurance Game.Michael Moehler - 2009 - Utilitas 21 (3):297-326.
Added to PP
Historical graph of downloads
Citations of this work
Stop Talking about Fake News!Joshua Habgood-Coote - 2019 - Inquiry: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Philosophy 62 (9-10):1033-1065.
Political vandalism as counter‐speech: A defense of defacing and destroying tainted monuments.Ten-Herng Lai - 2020 - European Journal of Philosophy 28 (3):602-616.
“Hillary Clinton is the Only Man in the Obama Administration”: Dual Character Concepts, Generics, and Gender.Sarah-Jane Leslie - 2015 - Analytic Philosophy 56 (2):111-141.
Agency, Power, and Injustice in Metalinguistic Disagreement.Paul-Mikhail Catapang Podosky - 2022 - Philosophical Quarterly 72 (2):1- 24.
References found in this work
The moral psychology of fiction.Gregory Currie - 1995 - Australasian Journal of Philosophy 73 (2):250 – 259.
Can liberals support a ban on violent pornography?Danny Scoccia - 1996 - Ethics 106 (4):776-799.