Pornography by Susan Mendus, translated by Kaveh Behbahani

There are three main questions concerning pornography: 1- How should pornography be defined? Some definitions embed the belief that pornography is morally wrong, while others define it without moral bias, in terms of its content and function. 2- Why is pornography wrong? Some accounts consider pornography morally wrong because they believe it can corrupt individuals or have destructive effects on society's morals. Other accounts, however, find pornography objectionable only insofar as it causes physical harm to those involved in its production, or offends unwilling viewers. 3- Should the law restrict pornography? Here, debates arise such as whether the law should intervene to prevent immoral conduct, and whether the importance of freedom of expression and individual autonomy is sufficient to preclude legislation against pornography. It is at this point that the discussion of pornography leads to much broader questions about law and autonomy in liberal societies.

.

1- What is Pornography?

This question seems simple, but many conflicting answers have been given to it. Etymologically, "pornography" means the depiction of women as prostitutes, and although such a definition may seem inappropriate these days, some feminists use it to argue in favor of legal restrictions on pornography. The proposal by Andrea Dworkin and Catharine MacKinnon[2] is that pornography be defined as: "the graphic sexually explicit subordination of women through pictures or words." The two thinkers go so far as to include in their definition representations[3] in which women are dehumanized and shown as sexual objects or commodities, or as natural-born prostitutes, as well as the experience of sexual pleasure in the form of raping women. This definition is contested for several reasons: first, it is not a comprehensive definition. For instance, male homosexual pornography and child pornography do not fall within its scope. Furthermore, this definition is value-laden. By stating that pornography by definition entails the subordination of women, Dworkin and MacKinnon assume that pornography is morally wrong, but mere assertion is insufficient; this claim requires proof. For these reasons, some writers offer a "non-biased" definition of pornography. The aim of such a definition is to identify pornographic matters based on their degree of sexual explicitness and to raise the question of whether such explicitness is morally objectionable or not, or whether the law should restrict it.

The report of the Committee on Obscenity and Film Censorship in England and Wales in 1979 (the "Williams Report")[4] is an example of the second approach. This report uses the term "pornography" to refer to "books, poems, paintings, photographs, films, or things of that sort (what are generally called representations)" and suggests that "a pornographic representation combines two elements: it has a certain function or intention to sexually arouse its audience, and also a certain content, namely the explicit representation of sexual matters (organs, postures, activities, etc.). For a work to be pornography, it must have such a function and such content together." This definition refers entirely to the function and content of representations and sets aside issues of morality and legal restriction to be resolved separately.

اما به این تعریف هم انتقاد شده است که کاربرد متداول واژۀ پرنوگرافی را دقیق نشان نمی‌دهد. به همین سبب کمیسیونِ میس (Meese)[5] در ایالاتِ متحد در سال1986 اعلام کرد که "عنوان 'پرنوگرافی' بی‌تردید موهِن است" و  از تعریف ویلیامز ایراد می‌گرفت به این دلیل که چنین واقعیتی را منعکس نمی‌کند. همچنین کمیسیونِ امریکاییِ جانسُن[6] (1970) از بکار‌بردنِ اصطلاح پرنوگرافی در توصیه‌های قانونی‌اش کلاً امتناع کرد و چنین استدلال کرد که به‌نظر می‌رسد "این اصطلاح هیچ اهمیت قانونی ندارد و بیش از اینکه نشان‌دهندۀ مذموم بودن محتوا و تاثیرِ این‌جور امور باشد نشان‌دهندۀ مخالفت شخصی [یا سوبژکتیو] با آن است."

بنابراین، بگو‌مگو‌هایِ بسیاری تعریف پرنوگرافی را احاطه کرده است: کاربرد متعارفِ این واژه نشان می‌دهد ظاهراً اصطلاحی است موهِن که بیانگرِ مخالفتِ شخصی [یا سوبژکتیو] با امورِ صریح جنسی است. اما این بحث وجود دارد که برای اینکه این اصطلاح در یک زمینۀ قانونی به کار بیاید نباید کاملاً شخصی [یا سوبژکتیو] باشد و باید در حدِ امکان بدون هیچ سوگیریِ اخلاقی، به محتوا و کارکرد ارجاع دهد.

 

 

2- پرنوگرافی چه ایرادی دارد؟

همچنین بحث‌های فراوانی در این باب هست که آیا پرنوگرافی اخلاقا ً نادرست است و اگر هست چرا و اینکه آیا هرگونه قبحِ اخلاقی به خودیِ خود تحدید یا ممنوعیت قانونی را توجیه می‌کند؟ بعضی چنین استدلال می‌کنند که پرنوگرافی مصرف کنندگان‌اش را فاسد می‌کند. درواقع همین ادعاست که جزء لایتجزای قانون جاری انگلستان در باب قباحت جنسی است و طبقِ آن امری "قبیح" تعریف می‌شود که "می‌تواند کسانی را که احتمالاً آن را می‌خوانند، تماشا می‌کنند یا به آن گوش می‌سپارند فاسد کند و به انحراف بکشاند". در ضابطۀ دُوُرکین- مَکینون نیز تلویحاً همین برداشت از قبیح بودنِ پرنوگرافی وجود دارد. در ضابطۀ آن‌ها پرنوگرافی چیزی است که تصاویر زنان را توأم با تبعیض جنسی عرضه می‌کند و تاثیرات مخربی بر جامعه دارد. در نگاه آن‌ها پرنوگرافی چونان جام زهری است که در حلقوم اخلاق جامعه ریخته می‌شود و می‌تواند به گرایش‌های موهِن نسبت به زنان و حتی احتمالاً به خشونتِ جنسی علیه آن‌ها مشروعیت دهد.

در هر دو مورد، اتهام وارد بر امورِ قبیح جنسی به طورعام و امورِ پُرنوگرافیک به طور خاص این است که این امور، اخلاقاً به افرادی که از آن‌ها استفاده می‌کنند یا بطور کلی به جامعه لطمه می‌زنند.

اما دیگران به صدمۀ اخلاقیِ [امور پرنوگرافیک] ارجاع نمی‌دهند، بدین سبب که یا به چنین مفهومی شک دارند یا معتقدند در یک بسترِ قانونی نباید به چنین مفهومی متوسل شویم. برای نمونه گزارش ویلیامز پرنوگرافی را به شرطی نادرست می‌داند که تولیدِ آن مستلزم تحمیل صدمۀ فیزیکی باشد یا مخاطبان ناخواسته و نادانسته‌اش را برنجاند و قُبحِ اخلاقی به خودی خود هیچ دلیلی به زیانِ پرنوگرافی نیست. در حقیقت همان‌طور که پیشتر اشاره شد گزارش ویلیامز پرنوگرافی را صرفاً بر پایۀ  صراحت جنسی‌اش تعریف می‌کند و هیچ ارجاعی به جایگاه اخلاقی آن نمی‌دهد.

3- چه چیز وضع قانون علیه پرنوگرافی را توجیه می‌کند؟

جای تعجب نیست که تعاریف متفاوت پرنوگرافی در کنارِ اعتراضات گوناگونی که به این تعاریف شده است به پیشنهاد‌های مختلفی برای اقدام قانونی راه می‌برند. کسانی که معتقدند پرنوگرافی به لحاظِ اخلاقی به مصرف‌کننده یا بطور کلی به جامعه صدمه می‌زند و به همین سبب باید ممنوع شود اغلب به قیم‌سالاری[7] متهم می‌شوند. این اتهام یک اتهامِ جدی است زیرا یکی از اصول مهمِ راهنمای جوامع لیبرال‌–‌دموکرات این است که دولت باید در میان برداشت‌های متعارضی که از امرِ خیر وجود دارد بی‌طرف بماند. دولت نباید تلاش کنند درک خاص و مطلوب خود را از بهترین راه زیستن به شهروندان تحمیل کنند. همچنین نباید اعمالِ شهروندان را صرفاً به این دلیل که اخلاقاً آن‌ها را نامطلوب می داند ممنوع یا با آن‌ها مخالفت کند.

In the same vein, in liberal societies, the principle of freedom of expression is a very important principle, and some have argued that the prohibition or suppression of pornography violates the principle of freedom of expression. The importance of freedom of expression is often explained by reference to individual autonomy: in any society, people are better able to be autonomous when they can cultivate and develop their views and opinions, and this requires access to a wide range of ideas and beliefs so that people themselves can choose among them.

But both the argument based on state neutrality and the argument based on freedom of expression have been criticized. Most of these criticisms come from feminists who claim that this very free access to pornography undermines state neutrality and is an obstacle to the freedom of expression of certain groups. For example, it has been said that pornography is very similar to racist speech: just as racist speech may undermine the self-esteem of Black people or minority groups, pornography undermines the self-esteem of women and makes the cultivation of autonomy difficult for them.

This feminist critique of pornography also calls into question the individualistic assumptions of liberal political philosophy. According to this view, what justifies legislating against pornography is not that pornography causes moral harm or offends specific individuals. Rather, the damage that pornography inflicts on the self-esteem of women as a group justifies legislating against it.

.

---

.

[1] A translation from the Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Vol. 7, p. 543, entry on Pornography, written by Susan Mendus (Professor of Political Philosophy at the University of York, England). Translator.

[2] Dworkin and MacKinnon, along with Robin Morgan, are among the well-known anti-porn feminists. Translator.

[3] representations

[4] This review was conducted in Britain, led by the renowned British moral philosopher Bernard Williams along with twelve others. Translator.

[5] Its full name is Attorney General's Commission on Pornography. This research on pornography was commissioned by then-US President Ronald Reagan to Attorney General Edwin Meese. Translator.

[6] - Its full name is President's Commission on Obscenity and Pornography. This commission was formed with the cooperation of Congress and then-US President Lyndon B. Johnson in the late 1960s. The commission's report caused considerable controversy because it essentially described pornography as harmless and stated that no restrictions should be applied to adults in this area. Scientific research has yielded various results regarding the relationship between pornography and crimes of sexual violence. The Williams report and the Johnson report found no causal link between pornography and sexual assaults, whereas the Meese report sees a causal link between violent sexual deviancies and violent pornographic representations. However, this report also distinguishes between those pornographic representations in which equality between men and women is observed and which contain no violence, and representations in which women are coerced and abused, or in any case, their subordination is implied by the text. According to this report, pornographic representations that depict men and women as equals and contain no violent scenes do not lead to rape or other sexual violence. Translator.

[7] Paternalism

.

---

.

Pornography by Susan Mendus, translated by Kaveh Behbahani

Download PDF of the article Pornography by Susan Mendus

Download from Server 1 | Download from Server 2

.

---

.