Law and Critique

, Volume 1, Issue 1–2, pp 131–154 | Cite as

Debating pornography: The symbolic dimensions

  • Beverley Brown
Article

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    C. MacKinnon,Feminism Unmodified: Discourses on Life and Law (Cambridge, Mass. and London: Harvard University Press, 1987), 146.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    M. Foucault,The History of Sexuality, Vol. 1 (London: Allen Lane, 1979). See also M. Cousins & C. Hussain,Michel Foucault, chs.8 and 9 (London: Macmillan, 1984).Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    A. Soble,Pornography: Marxism, Feminis and the Future of Sexuality (New Havan and London: Yale University Press, 1986), 108.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    A. Carter,The Sadean Woman and the Ideology of Pornography (New York:Pantheon, 1978).Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    S. Griffin,Pornography and Silence: Culture's Revenge against Nature (New York: Harper & Row, 1981).Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    “The Wolfenden Report”,Report of the Committee on Homosexual Offences and Prostitution (Cmnd.247, 1957).Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    ‘Representation’ is admittedly a slightly inept name for this position given its critique of the specific meaning of representation as representation of the real.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    S. Kappeler,The Pornography of Representation (Cambridge: Polity, 1986), 103.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    K. Millett,Sexual Politics (London: Virago, 1977, first published 1970).Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    See “Francis Biddle's Sister”, in C. MacKinnon,supra note 1, at 176., 146.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    P. Califia, “Feminism and Sadomasochism”,Heresies 3/4 (1981), 32.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    See T. Adorno, “Juliette or Enlightenment Morality”, inDialectic of Enlightenment (New York: Seabury Press, 1972).Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    This is not to deny that feminists have used such designations themselves. See P. Rush, review of D. Lacombe inInternational Journal of the Sociology of Law 17 (1989), 103–108.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    See B. Brown, “A Feminist Interest in Pornography: Some Modest Proposals”,m/f 5/6 (1981), 5–17, where this argument is explored more fully.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    R. Rich, “Anti-Porn: Soft Issue, Hard World”, inThe Village Voice 20 (July 1982).Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    See J. Donzelot,The Policing of Families (London: Hutchinson, 1979), ch.3; and K. Tribe,Land, Labour and Economic Discourse (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1978), ch.3.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    K. Millett,supra note 9, at 33.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    C. Gilligan,In a Different Voice (Cambridge, Mass, and London: Harvard University Press, 1982).Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    J.R. Gusfield,Symbolic Crusade: Status Politics and the American Temperance Movement (Urbana, Ill: University of Illinois Press, 1972), 20.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    See, for example, N. Elias,The Civilising Process (Oxford: Blackwell, 1978), Vol. I, and F. Braudel,Capitalism and Material Life, 1400–1800 (London: Weidenfeld, 1973).Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    P. Devlin,The Enforcement of Morals (London and New York: Oxford University Press, 1965); and H. L. A. Hart,Law, Liberty and Morality (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1963).Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    An understanding of Devlin for which I have to thank my colleague Dr. John Cairns.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    D. N. MacCormick,Legal Right and Social Democracy (Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press, 1982), 34.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    T. O'Hagan,The End of Law (Oxford: Blackwell, 1984), 111–113.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    See G. Postema,Bentham and the Common Law Tradition (Oxford: Clarendon, 1986), ch.1; and A.W.B. Simpson, “The Common Law and Legal Theory”, inOxford Essays in Jurisprudence, Second Series (Oxford: Clarendon, 1973), 77–99.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    J.R. Gusfield,supra note 19, at 11.,Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    See, for example, K. O'Donovan,Sexual Divisions in Law (London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 1985).Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    R. v. Sedley (1663) 1 Sid. 168.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    G. Robertson,Obscenity (London: Weidenfeld, 1979), 22.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    R. v. Curl (1727) 2 Stra. 788; 1 Barn. K.B. 29; 93 E.R. 849, which overturnedR. v. Read (1708) 11 Mod. Rep. 142; on the use ofSedley (see Robertson,ibid.,Obscenity (London: Weidenfeld, 1979), 22, 22–23).Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Chief Justice Cockburn inR. v. Hicklin (1868) L.R. 3 Q.B. at 371.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    A.W.B. Simpson, “Obscenity and the Law”, in M.A. Stewart, ed.,Law, Morality and Rights (Dordrecht: Reidel, 1983), 228. Simpson argues that this has produced problems because it is inappropriate to build a legislative notion of the effects of acts as a class into the definition of a crime.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Joel Feinberg dismisses any such attempt to understand feminist concerns in terms of defamation on the grounds that it would be impraticable and also that the specifics of defamation, as currently defined, cannot convincingly be attached to pornography, viz.: (1) intention (2) specifying ‘interest in the reputation’. He also raises doubts about the sense of group insult, asking rhetorically, “Are Jews defamed by the characterisation of Shylock? —Offense to Others (New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1985), 147–149. Apart from the fact that many would not accept the implied ‘no’ to the last question, his analysis strikes me as inappropriate to the issues raised here, first, because it is too dominated by the concerns of expediency in terms of finding a remedy and, second, because it is too focused on modern defamation law. Yet, to take a slightly different instance, seditious libel, Feinberg has himself outlined the considerable changes that have taken place in the definition of this crime — ‘Limits to the Free Expression of Opinion”, in J. Feinberg and H. Gross, eds.,Philosophy of Law (Encino and Belmont, California: Dickenson, 1975), 147–48.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    S. Hall in National Deviancy Conference (ed.),Permissiveness and Control: The Fate of the Sixties Legislation (London: Macmillan, 1980).Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Donzelot,supra note 16. at 231–32; see also P.Q. Hirst's account of Donzelot, “The Genesis of the Social”, inPolitics and Power 3 (1981), 77.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    The connections between feminism, objections to pornography and calls for the charge of blasphemous libel to be used against Rushdie have been explored in an interesting paper by Susan Mendus, “The Tigers of Wrath and the Horses of Instruction”, given as a seminar at Edinburgh University, 8 February 1990.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    J. Gallop,Feminism and Psychoanalysis: The Daughter's Seduction (London: Macmillan, 1982), 93.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Deborah Charles Publication 1990

Authors and Affiliations

  • Beverley Brown
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Centre for CriminologyUniversity of EdinburghUK
  2. 2.Social and Philosophical Study of Law, Faculty of LawUniversity of EdinburghUK

Personalised recommendations