Pornography As A Feminist Issue
 
During the 1980's and the early 1990's the US feminist movement was
polarised by "sex wars" - sharp debates around pornography and other issues.
 
Nancy Herzig and Rafael Bernabe untangle the arguments.
 
Some activists see this as a key debate. They consider pornography to be a
central aspect of the oppression of women and one of the most widespread and
effective mechanisms through which sexism is enforced and reproduced in our
cultures. Most - not all - defenders of this perspective have supported some
form of censorship as a means of "protecting" women or women's rights from
pornography. This has certainly been the case of writers Catherine Mackinnon
and Andrea Dworkin, the most influential feminist critics of pornography.
 
Other activists say the porn issue is a divisive and distracting question
that, according to them, has only succeeded in diverting the energies of
feminism into sterile infighting, and reduced time and energy spent on other
significant questions that affect women. Whatever their views regarding
pornography, these activists argue that feminists should not be
concentrating their efforts in the porn-censorship issue. Most - not all -
of those holding such views also reject censorship as an appropriate
response to sexually explicit materials which women may find objectionable.
 
A third current of feminist activists say that the debate on pornography is
important, because it poses important questions regarding pleasure, sexual
preference and self-determination, sexual roles, sexuality and its place
within our cultures. They say these should be among the central concerns of
feminism. Some of these feminists not only oppose censorship, but defend
much of what is called pornography from its feminist critics.
 
There are of course many intermediate positions, and a growing number of
books on the debate. The question will not go away. But before we add to the
already long list of misunderstandings, let's at least make clear what the
debate is "not" about.
 
The debate is not about the use of violence against women or the coercion of
women into participating in the production of pornography. All feminists
that have participated in the ATC debate oppose such forms coercion. We all
consider that such coercion or violence against women is unacceptable, and
should be illegal. In spite of our deep differences, we share this - not
insignificant - common goal.
 
So what is the real question? For some feminists, pornography is itself a
form of coercion and violence against women and it must therefore be opposed
"as such", and, if necessary, made illegal or censored. Others reject this
equation. They argue that, while feminists must certainly oppose violence
and coercion in this activity as in any other social sphere, they should not
campaign for censorship. Or even against pornography as such.
 
While they oppose any kind of forced participation of women in pornography,
and seek to change the conditions which may push women into the porn
industry against their will, these activists reject the notion that the
participation of women in the production of pornography is "always" the
result of coercion or violence.
 
As we all know, pornography is not only attacked by some feminists. It is
also opposed by conservative and religious forces in most countries, that is
to say, by the worst enemies of women's rights.
 
In the US colony of Puerto Rico, for example, the question of censorship and
pornography was brought to the centre-stage not by anti-porn feminists, but
through a crusade of influential Church and right-wing groups against the
"three horsemen of immorality" - abortion, gays and pornography. Under the
flag of moral regeneration, the colonial government has - among other things
- introduced prayer in public schools, turned campaigns against AIDS into
campaigns against sex, tried to close down abortion clinics, and harassed
gay/lesbian clubs. Conservative groups have opposed university courses on
gay literature. And the Police "Vice Squad," has tried to close down the
only store on the island which sells sexually explicit materials.
 
The Fourth Internationalist group Taller de Formacion Politica has
emphasised the need to oppose censorship on the island. We have also
defended pornography.
 
Why? Because a freer, richer, sexuality cannot evolve through legislation by
experts, even feminist, socialist experts.(1) Nor does a new freer sexuality
exist already, in the mind or programme of some feminist or socialist
vanguard. It can only be created to the extent that men and women are
guaranteed the right to consensually explore - to construct and reconstruct,
define and redefine - their sexualities. Nobody can claim to know what the
results of this process will be.
 
Part of this process is defending the right of all, and certainly of women,
to denounce and criticise anything they find offensive or degrading. But
each specific criticism will surely encounter some divergent views or
appreciation. It is completely unrealistic to think, for example, that women
do or will agree on what is degrading or sexist in sexual representations.
What some women find degrading, others may find very exciting and
liberating. In other words, one cannot censor degrading/sexist images
without imposing someone's or some group's specific and particular notion of
what type of sexual representation, activity, position or practice is
degrading and which ones are not - what type of sex is right and which is
wrong.
 
This is the problem with the recurrent attempt to separate "pornography"
(sexist, degrading, etc.) from "erotica" (non-sexist, etc.). There has been
and there will be little agreement on the criteria for differentiating them,
and even lesson how to classify specific works.
 
Pro-censorship feminists insist that the fact that many women enjoy and
defend pornography cannot be a valid argument against censorship. These
women, they claim, have evidently internalised their subordination. This is,
they argue, the very function and effect of pornography: it makes the
degradation of women seem normal, even to many women. For the anti-porn
feminists, women's use of pornography is an argument "for" censorship, not
against it! There is a deep problem with this reasoning: it dismisses what
women have to say about themselves. It denies them the agency and the
ability to choose for themselves. It wishes to impose - through censorship ?
what somebody else (the anti-porn feminists) have decided is best for them.
 
As socialists, we should reject this substitutionist perspective. The
principle of self-determination and of consensuality is the key to a freer
sexuality. Nobody should be forced to engage in any sexual activity against
their will, but neither should any adult be penalised for consensually
engaging in sexual practices others may find objectionable.
 
Of course, anti-censorship liberals and libertarians will share this view.
But as socialists we should go further. The right of women to choose what
kind of sex they want to have does not just depend on the absence of
censorship and other restrictions (like sodomy laws in places like Puerto
Rico). It also requires the presence of certain material conditions, like
guaranteed income, housing, health, daytime child care and employment. In
the absence of such conditions, many women will be coerced or pushed into
unwanted sexual relationships, encounters and practices.
 
This is the weak spot of liberal feminist critics such as (Pally, McElroy,
Tisdale, and, to a lesser extent, Strossen. They oppose censorship as part
of a laissez-faire perspective, which - in the guise of rejecting
"victimhood" - often revives the myth of the "self-made man," or woman.
Instead, we must oppose censorship while struggling for all the social
guarantees women need to flourish as free individuals.
 
It is quite possible to oppose censorship without defending porn.Indeed,
many liberals oppose censoring pornography not because they see porn as
valuable or access to porn as an important right, but because legislation
censoring porn would endanger other valuable works, or limit freedoms which
are otherwise important. This view accepts the critics' arguments that
pornography is sexist and trash, lacking any redeeming value, but considers
the circulation of such degraded stuff to be the price we pay for free
speech. In short, the circulation of porn is a lesser evil, compared to the
dangers implicit in censorship.
 
This view is quite tempting, since it accepts many of the allegations of the
anti-porn feminists, while still opposing censorship. But it is still a
problematic perspective. After all, what is it that makes pornography
different from other types of representation? Why is it singled out for such
harsh treatment?
 
Why does it occupy such a low rung in our cultural hierarchies? Is it
because it is often sexist? Hardly, since so are most of the culturally
prestigious representations within our culture, from literary works to soap
operas. Is it because women or men may be harassed, exploited in the process
of producing it? But? while conditions vary from country to country - this
is equally true of most activities under capitalism, from the office to the
sweatshop floor. Or because porn commodifies aspects of human culture? But
surely capitalism does that with all our needs and passions.
 
Pornography is sexual. It is a representation which seeks to sexually excite
us. That, not the sexism it shares with the rest of our sexist culture, is
what makes it different. That is why the right hates it. And it is precisely
porn's sexual characteristic which makes it a legitimate aspect of our
culture.
 
If sex and sexual pleasure are valuable aspects of our humanity, then porn's
intended effect - sexual arousal - is at least as legitimate and valuable
as the effects - laughter, tears, tension, relaxation, indignation,
aesthetic enjoyment - generated by non-sexual film, photography and writing.
 
We criticise what we find objectionable in all of those other forms of
representation, but we do not wish to abolish them. Unless sexual excitement
is evil, our attitude to porn should not be any different. Similarly, the
fact that capital commodifies leisure does not lead us to support attempts
to extend the working day, but rather to defend our free time from the
encroachments of capital, while seeking to transform it. If capital, for its
own reasons, in some cases has extended the public space for the circulation
of (commodified) sexual representations, it should not be our objective to
close that space, but to defend it against the censors, while struggling to
free it from its subordination (in terms of the products, the conditions of
their production, etc.) to the needs of capital and the imperatives of the
market.
 
It is of course true that representations which seek to sexually excite have
a bad name. But it should be our objective to defy that. The low regard in
which they are held is not due to the sexism, which we must criticise, but
to the precarious legitimacy of sexuality itself. It is with fear, shame and
guilt that we (above all, women) are still taught to relate to things
sexual.
 
Sexuality is still the realm of dirty, sinful, immoral, shameful impulses.
After all, according to our obscenity laws (in Puerto Rico and the US),
"artistic, religious and literary value" can save a work (no matter how
offensive to the public) from being banned as obscene. Not so with sexual
value. The law does not recognise such a thing. Sexually exciting content
is, by itself, considered worthless, a second-class citizen, a sort of
undocumented alien that can only naturalise itself and become part of our
culture by marrying some "higher" value.
 
This is another problem with the porn/erotica distinction, beyond the
futility of the exercise. Why should we even try to segregate sexually
explicit materials that we consider sexist as a special category (porn), if
we don't do the same with sexist non-sexual dramas, comedies, etc. even when
we criticise their sexism? To do so is to again single out certain
representations not because they are sexist, but because they are sexual. In
other words, in debating right-wing censors we have found it impossible to
introduce the porn/erotica distinction without dragging anti-sex prejudices
into our struggle against sexism. Defending pornography helps us fight those
prejudices, while struggling against sexism.
 
Notes
 
The authors present their views in more detail in "Puerto Rico: ¿zona libre
de sexo?" Nómada, 2 Oct. 1995. Other useful reading includes: Lynne Segal,
"False Promises: Anti-Pornography Feminism," Socialist Register, 1993;
Raquel Osborne, La construcción sexual de la realidad (Ctedra, 1993); F.M.
Christensen, "Invitación a la violencia: la evidencia," Debate feminista,
March 1994; Marcia Pally, Sex and Sensibility (Ecco, 1994); articles by
Snitow, Califia, Hunter, Willis, Duggan, Vance in Caught Looking (Long
River, 1995); Sallie Tisdale, Talk Dirty to Me (Doubleday, 1994); Pat
Califia, Public Sex (Cleiss, 1994); Lynn Hunt, ed., The Invention of
Pornography (Zone, 1993); John D'emilio, Making Trouble (Routledge, 1992);
Wendy McElroy, XXX: A Woman's Right to Pornography (St. Martin's, 1995).
There is still much to learn from Herbert Marcuse, Eros and Civilization
(Beacon, orig. 1955) particulary Part II, "Beyond the Reality Principle."