“Pornography is huge in the United States. It is consumed and
created at record levels. The adult entertainment industry grosses billions each year. 70% of American men watch pornography at least
once a month, and 20%of men admit to watching it in the office. “ - PolicyMic
This past week, we have
read Bart Welling’s piece Ecoporn: on the limits of visualising the nonhuman
which argues that there is a relationship between “ecopornographic
representations” and “human attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors” in regards to
the non-human world (54). Through his argument, he pulls various definitions of
ethnopornography to theorize that it is not only the “disinformation disseminated
by an organization so as to present an environmentally responsible public image” but also a “contemporary
visual discourse made up of highly idealized, anthropomorphized views of
landscapes and non human animals” (54, 57). He breaks down how ecoporn specifically
IS porn and not simply LIKE porn, which he argues by comparing the treatment of
nature to the treatment of the female body. Specifically, how it “perpetuates
seeing feminized Others that facilitated countless acts of violent
expropriation” and how the female body in porn is seen as “exploitable and
domesticable” (59).
What I found most interesting
was how he discussed ecoporn to BE porn due to the “hardcore obsession” with “explicit
sexuality” and “violent death” or, snuff films (in the form of Discovery
Channel’s Shark Week). Shark Week, the televised weeklong sharkathon, depicts
various aspects of life surrounding sharks. It depicts sharks in their “natural
habitats” – in quotations because of Welling’s claim that some footage may
actually not be real shark footage and portrays massive great white
sharks leaping out of the water to attack and kill baby seal decoys (60). Some may argue
that this is just a demonstration of the “Circle of Life” and how the natural
world functions, but, if we take his definition of ecoporn as the feminizing of
the natural world, then in portraying the natural world as a world of violence
due to menacing predators, does that not mirror violent sexual themes in
pornography?
Taking his claims a
little more literally, let’s consider how the porn industry has a history of
hiding violence and abuse of women in porn. The visual side of magazine porn
features airbrushed, beautiful, naked women. Sometimes they are clad in overtly
sexualized costumes, and other times they are “natural” (natural in the way
that ecoporn is “natural”). They are also “natural” in the way that they are
designed to “conceal ‘invisible’ damage,” such as sexual abuse, violence,
degrading language, potential health risks, and the potential exploitation (57).
This is reflected in the way that videos of “healthy” and “happy” sea life are
thriving after the BP oil spill in the video “BP Gulf Coast Update: Our OngoingCommitment” mostly as a way to boost PR, but also to control the narrative of
nature vs. mankind.
This relationship between
the natural world and pornography is initially difficult to understand, due to
the awkwardness of comparing video footage and photography of wildlife to the
exploitation and male gaze of the female body. But through these parallels, it
becomes clear that there is a relationship that should be further studied and
understood.
- Joelle Garcia
- Joelle Garcia
Joelle,
ReplyDeleteI think that you made a great connection between ecopornography and pornography that involves women, the type of pornography that is often frowned upon by society and that you gave statistics about in the beginning of your post. This allowed me to see the connection in a different light than I did before. Ecopornography, like "standard" pornography, does hide the dark side. Both types of pornography make it seem like there isn't a photographer or videographer there disturbing the otherwise natural course of things, making the representation that viewers end up seeing one that is skewed, unreliable, and not an accurate representation of the truth. It's fabricated and perfected. I have to wonder how we can gather an accurate knowledge about nature when this is the case.
Thanks for a thought-provoking read.
Best,
Sarah Davis
Hi Joelle,
ReplyDeleteYour post really unpacks some of the more important functions of Welling's piece, especially in drawing the explicit similarities between pornography and ecopornography, and further understanding ecoporn as a separate construct under the hierarchy under the pornography industry. (Welling 55) He outlines three major points, however, that are crucial to our understanding of this idea: (Welling 57-59)
-It perpetuates feminine "tropes" that ultimately lead to grievous, violent acts, including genocide within a society.
-It creates the "all-seeing male" that furthers the representation of women and non humans interchangeable.
-It is currently leading to a societal drive to the brink of obsession with more explicit sexuality and violence between the two representations.
You mention this last factor as something you found particularly interesting, and point to the "snuff films" (Shark Week, the example discussed in the text), and you end with an interesting question: "Some may argue that this is just a demonstration of the “Circle of Life” and how the natural world functions, but, if we take his definition of ecoporn as the feminizing of the natural world, then in portraying the natural world as a world of violence due to menacing predators, does that not mirror violent sexual themes in pornography?" However, I question this proposal. Welling certainly utilizes the Shark Week example to outline certain themes, but he also demonstrates a current shift in popular media, specifically regarding this non human populace. He quotes Nigel Rothfels: "Sharks are undergoing an image restoration of their own, as the Discovery Channel tries to change the focus of Shark Week, and Peter Benchley (author both of Jaws and of the more complex meditation Shark Trouble) teams up with the National Geographic Society in print and on film to transform great white sharks in the popular imagination from killing machines to paragons of evolutionary fitness." (Welling 59) Rather than placing the all-too prevalent violent trends that mark the pornography industry in the human world, Welling points to humans as the original culprit for demonizing the shark in the first place. In other words, it's not the sharks that are the problem; it's the walking land sharks who click the buttons that capture these pre-meditated and fabricated moments and further circulate them. The same can be said for the problems within the human pornography industry. It's not the women's fault, and it's not the animal's fault.
As for "feminizing the natural world," it's a reasonable argument to make that Welling holds that modern society sees the natural world as already feminine. Throughout the Romanticism period, it was a prevalent theme that Man would attempt to conquer "Mother Nature." Welling indirectly speaks to this sentiment, especially when he refers to Steve Irwin's The Crocodile Hunter. (Welling 61) However, I believe the term "feminizing" might not be quite right, simply for technicality. It suggests that this concept is currently taking place and the world/society is undergoing a process, which may prove slightly misleading.
Best,
Jasmine Spitler