the pornography of politics
A few years ago, former Prime Minister Sir John Major said of an increasingly politicized British political body, "[s]pin is the pornography of politics".
Pornography has a unique and almost ironic ability to entice us by saying absolutely nothing. It offers nothing new, nothing exciting or unknown. It represents the total and absolute eradication of seduction and therefore the subsequent destruction of desire. Yet congruently, pornography remains capable of producing the illusion of seduction, and thereby remaining one of the most profitable businesses in the United States.
Two commonly stated yet rarely thought out axioms: sex sells and sex is repressed. How else but through a simulation could these two ideas simultaneously exist? It would appear that sex is used to sell nearly every product (except those often directly sexual, as if doing so would be vulgar), yet continues to remain taboo. Of course, the ability of sex to sell is contingent upon its feeling as taboo. If we did not think it naughty, the images of nearly naked supermodels selling us clothing they aren't even wearing would no longer work. Yet what is the seductress here? Something within this image of sex lures us in, enthralls us enough to associate positive (in the capitalist sense) emotions with an arbitrary product. The seducer can no longer be that which remains physically hidden, as the picture reveals almost the entire woman's body. By an act of inversion, it appears that the affectivity of an image increases as more is shown. The revelation of a woman's body increases its seductability, implying that the allure has little to do with what is actually being shown.
Of course, there are parts of the image that will forever remain hidden, and one could possibly posit a theory that suggests the genitals are key. The looker, not quite a voyeur, remains enthralled because the quintessence of woman remains hidden in underwear. However I am not apt to believe that the entire crux of desire rests upon these areas. No, instead they remain the symbol of desire thereby distracting us from the vulgarity of obviousness; that taboo exists within the communication of sexuality itself, not within the image.
Of course, I borrow this idea from Foucault, who says that society, "speaks verbosely of its own silence, takes great pains to relate in detail the things it does not say, denounces the powers it exercises, and promises to liberate itself from the very laws that have made it function...What lead us to show, ostentatiously, that sex is something we hide, to say it is something we silence" (The History of Sexuality, 9)? In other words, Foucault is asking how, in a society surrounded by nonstop sex, we can claim it is repressed? Repression is communicated through the expression of sexuality. These expressions of sexuality are thought to be naughty and shocking - as contrary to the stuffy, Victorian-style decency that supposedly regulates our behavior. Pictures of naked women package this feeling of liberation and sell it to us through jeans, shorts, shoes, cars, beer, hamburgers, vacation packages or just about anything else one can imagine. Unfortunately for a consumerist culture, edginess is not something you can wear. Hegemony, however, is.
Which leads us to pornography. Porn is a pristine example of hegemony at work, as it packages and sells the feeling of excitement and liberation through reinforcing the existing power structure (power structure here being the sexual commodification of women's bodies in all its manifestations, from social to spiritual to economic). If pornography were actually taboo, it would show loving, caring relationships. It does not.
Pornography and politics are similar in the respect that both subjugate through a false hope of agency. Neither challenge mainstream structures of power, yet both remain marketable by selling the allure of doing just that. Spin is especially guilty of being vulgar, as it intentionally sells the image of salvation through enslavement. Work shall set you free. If politics were actually taboo (aka politicians who were real mavericks or agents of change), they would seek to destroy the power structure. If politicians actually believed in family values, mothers would collect a salary for staying at home. If they believed in alternative sources of energy, they would have to lead a fight not only against oil, but against masculine domination of nature.
Spin is the pornography of politics because it turns us on without offering us anything we don't already know. It is both masterful and pathetic all at once. Isn't that what we want, after all?
Pornography has a unique and almost ironic ability to entice us by saying absolutely nothing. It offers nothing new, nothing exciting or unknown. It represents the total and absolute eradication of seduction and therefore the subsequent destruction of desire. Yet congruently, pornography remains capable of producing the illusion of seduction, and thereby remaining one of the most profitable businesses in the United States.
Two commonly stated yet rarely thought out axioms: sex sells and sex is repressed. How else but through a simulation could these two ideas simultaneously exist? It would appear that sex is used to sell nearly every product (except those often directly sexual, as if doing so would be vulgar), yet continues to remain taboo. Of course, the ability of sex to sell is contingent upon its feeling as taboo. If we did not think it naughty, the images of nearly naked supermodels selling us clothing they aren't even wearing would no longer work. Yet what is the seductress here? Something within this image of sex lures us in, enthralls us enough to associate positive (in the capitalist sense) emotions with an arbitrary product. The seducer can no longer be that which remains physically hidden, as the picture reveals almost the entire woman's body. By an act of inversion, it appears that the affectivity of an image increases as more is shown. The revelation of a woman's body increases its seductability, implying that the allure has little to do with what is actually being shown.
Of course, there are parts of the image that will forever remain hidden, and one could possibly posit a theory that suggests the genitals are key. The looker, not quite a voyeur, remains enthralled because the quintessence of woman remains hidden in underwear. However I am not apt to believe that the entire crux of desire rests upon these areas. No, instead they remain the symbol of desire thereby distracting us from the vulgarity of obviousness; that taboo exists within the communication of sexuality itself, not within the image.
Of course, I borrow this idea from Foucault, who says that society, "speaks verbosely of its own silence, takes great pains to relate in detail the things it does not say, denounces the powers it exercises, and promises to liberate itself from the very laws that have made it function...What lead us to show, ostentatiously, that sex is something we hide, to say it is something we silence" (The History of Sexuality, 9)? In other words, Foucault is asking how, in a society surrounded by nonstop sex, we can claim it is repressed? Repression is communicated through the expression of sexuality. These expressions of sexuality are thought to be naughty and shocking - as contrary to the stuffy, Victorian-style decency that supposedly regulates our behavior. Pictures of naked women package this feeling of liberation and sell it to us through jeans, shorts, shoes, cars, beer, hamburgers, vacation packages or just about anything else one can imagine. Unfortunately for a consumerist culture, edginess is not something you can wear. Hegemony, however, is.
Which leads us to pornography. Porn is a pristine example of hegemony at work, as it packages and sells the feeling of excitement and liberation through reinforcing the existing power structure (power structure here being the sexual commodification of women's bodies in all its manifestations, from social to spiritual to economic). If pornography were actually taboo, it would show loving, caring relationships. It does not.
Pornography and politics are similar in the respect that both subjugate through a false hope of agency. Neither challenge mainstream structures of power, yet both remain marketable by selling the allure of doing just that. Spin is especially guilty of being vulgar, as it intentionally sells the image of salvation through enslavement. Work shall set you free. If politics were actually taboo (aka politicians who were real mavericks or agents of change), they would seek to destroy the power structure. If politicians actually believed in family values, mothers would collect a salary for staying at home. If they believed in alternative sources of energy, they would have to lead a fight not only against oil, but against masculine domination of nature.
Spin is the pornography of politics because it turns us on without offering us anything we don't already know. It is both masterful and pathetic all at once. Isn't that what we want, after all?
posted by peuryan at 9:41 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home