Alexandra Giroux

When it comes to contemporary media coverage of politics, some thinkers come up “the media malaise theory”, pointing out the public disenchantment toward the leaders and the institutions. In our visual society, politics build their image through television, playing with the boundaries of “infotainment”, satisfying people who watch news as entertainment. It is often suggested politics has become a minor form of show business, which is a vernacular term for the business of entertainment. Some people answer to this argument that all the voices should be represented in a democracy, which is the justification of the existence of some show business programs. The question to asked is then how should the media contribute to the functioning of a representative democracy. And how should the media position themselves between the state, the market, and the society. It can be wondered whether there is a risk of feeling more than thinking. This essay will consider the media-ization of politics and see to what extent the criticisms have been justified and how the system has responded. The responsibility of the media will be pointed out to understand to what extent the concept of the citizen has been replaced by the consumer. In the battle of “romantic pessimists” versus “pragmatic optimists”, it will be showed that some kind of regulations play the role of safeguards. To finish, evidence of ways to resist will be put forward since the medias are not the only to blame in the media-ization of politics.

In a way of thunking, it can be argued that politics has become a minor form of show business because of the media-tization of it. The signifiant role played by the media in contemporary Western politics raises the question of whether there is a crisis of public (or civic) communication. Defenders of democracy are sometimes pessimistic and point out the commercialization and the commodification of politics by the media, the rise of infotainment or the tabloidization of political leaders. In 1997, when Diana, princess of Wales died in a car accident caused partially by the paparazzi, the media coverage was massive. The way that the media dealt with this political figure was more similar to a way to deal with a pop idol. In the new publicity game, it can be wondered if there is still an ethic. Roles have shifted and politicians who are looking for the best visibility sometimes have to take part in some entertainment shows. In 2003, Blair appeared on MTV for his campaign regarding the war against Iraq. It can be stated that this strategy was good to reach some people who do not watch political programs but the debate is necessarily less interesting in this kind of situation as tough questions are just non existent. In a tabloid fashion, politics is sometimes treated by the media sensationally, including scandal, tending to “newszak” i.e. news converted into entertainment, degrading public discourse. It is inevitable that politics should be commercialized because it is the way that the media work: the change in the economics of media impacts change in politics. The media want to maximize their profit and their audience size: to achieve these goals and to not bore the audience they sometimes turn politics into show-business. Pseudo events become a prominent part of political news coverage, leading sometimes to the bias of the news. Politics is turned into melodramas. Exoo (1994, p.53) explains that political news are sometimes dramatized, pointing out “the horse race of preference polls”, “the handicapping of the race”, “the soap opera of attack, gaffe and scandal” and “the hoopla of pseudo-events and photo ops”. Murdoch’s motto could be sum up in five “s”: sun, sensationalism, sex, scandals… and more globally scandology. It can be wondered who chooses this system. The hegemony theorists state that television is an instrument of capitalist theory that is narcotizing diversion from the real world of serious problems. Marketplace democracy theorists think that popular culture is chosen by the masses because it serves their interest and their needs. Hegemony theorists consider that rather than being proactive, the public is reactive. He totally agrees with the fact that News Corporation is in the entertainment business. Politics is often closely linked to popular culture: Blair appeared on photographs with Bono or Galagher, said that he loved the Beatles, did a speech on Bowie’s music in 1966. He is perfectly embodying the concept of endorsement and typifying the belief that politics is becoming a minor form of show-business. The idea is that the popularity of these pop idols will rub off on politicians such as Blair. Politics is as well a reality show program on the internet now with the “youtubification of politics”. While entertainment influences politics, politics influences as well entertainment: a lot of authentic events has been the basis of numerous synopsis. Among them, The Queen (Frears, 2006), JFK (Stone, 1991) or W (Stone, 2008). There is as well an infiltration of media actors in politics such as Reagan, Berlusconi, or Stalone.

There is no correlation between news density and news quality. There are more and more publications but obviously it does not mean that the content has a better quality. The media still have to have a code of conduct when it comes to publishing some stories. They are sometimes accused or not being responsible enough, forgetting that they should perform different functions such as information provision, electoral mobilization or watchdog. Relaxation of regulatory regimes, consumerist decisions making, growing power of advertisers and big volume that journalists have to produce make sometimes the responsibility of the media vanishing. The freedom of the press have necessarily to be pointed out, but the media are still responsible about their content. The dilemma opposing consumer sovereignty versus public service reveals that some private channels consider that the viewer is king and that TV should serve the interest of the individuals. In a competitive market, some regulations are sometimes necessary to constrain the media to have quality programs. “The basic ingredients for the renewal of the policy debate over press regulation are still there: a competitive and shrinking newspaper market; journalists’ fascination with human interest stories; and public obsession with the lives of celebrities and elite figures” (Deacon, 2004, quoted in Kuhn, 2007, p.140). Hallin’s model theorizes where the debate can take place: he distinguishes the spheres of consensus, controversy and deviance. It is about how much the media are willing to talk about and how much the audience can handle. For instance, Diana’s last pictures has never been published in a magazine even if it is not true on the Internet since it is very difficult to monitor the internet due to its transnational nature, the amount of data uploaded and the diversity of the users. On one hand, it can be argued that popular news seeks to provoke and question power. But on the other hand, it can be wondered whether it is responsible to deal with politics in a show business fashion. The tabloidization of politics has damaged public life since entertainment removes the real question from discussion. Blumer and Gurevitch (1995, quoted in Kuhn, 2007, p.264) analyze what is the bad consequences of the poor responsibility of the media: “The watchdog role of journalism is often shunted into channels of personalization, dramatization, witch huntery, soap-operatics and sundry trivialities. It is difficult for unconventional opinions to break into the established “market place of ideas”, and political arguments are often reduced to slogans and taunts”. Politicians must accept to become show business figures if they want to introduce the system and to have the possibility to express their political views. So, it can be asked whether democracy is in danger. People tend to pick up what culture has already defined for them and understand politics with those ready made stories, without sometimes understanding how public institutions work. Exoo (1994, p.75) is quite pessimistic about the situation since “the relative deprivation of knowledge leads to the relative deprivation of power”. If some lower status group do not perfectly understand the ins and outs of the issue, manipulated by political marketing, they will be less able to vote as a result in their own interest. There are alternative perspectives of the media. Dahlgren and Sparks (1991, quoted in Wheeler 1997) explain that from a liberal point of view, there should be a free market, a self-regulation and the media should distract the people. From a marxist point of view, the media system is capitalist, non reformable and they have an opiate perception of entertainment. Communists are in favor of public ownership, they want a liberalization reform and prefer enlightenment to entertainment.

The bright side is that thanks to the growth of the media, new channels of communication has been opened up between politicians and the public. Politics is not only dealt in a “show business” way. The sources of information has been expanded while the diversity of content have increased and the access has been widened. The media raise important issues of public concern, communicating, informing and having an agenda-setting function. The medias sometimes publish some newsworthy stories relating to malpractice or corruption. It is as a result more and more difficult for a politician to manipulate the people and to hide some inglorious aspects of their life. In France, the CSA, “Conseil supérieur de l’audiovisuel”, a French institution regulates the various electronic media in France. More globally, public service broadcasting has the role to provide quality programs, it has an important democratic role in terms of its educational and information functions. Social values, quality, range and balance and diversity are according to Ofcom (quoted in Kuhn, 2007, p.177) the basic objectives of public service broadcasting. The CSA used to be a separate organ but now its president is nominated by the French president, which rises again the question of the link between the media and the politics. But the government has to work hard to dominate the news agenda. Sometime, they might even be satisfied that the medias took a show business standpoint so people will forget about more serious issues. For instance, in France, while all the newspapers were talking about the justice minister, Dati’s pregnancy, more serious issues such as the desperation of the examining magistrate were committed.

Some people argue that it is not that clear that politics has turned into show business. Brants (1998, quoted in Kuhn, 2007, p.271) states that while “we might see a slight tendency towards a popularization of news, there is little evidence that politicians and politics are dramatically more personalized and sensationalized than before”. According to him, a wide range of programs can be regarded as legitimate outlets for civic communication. Some kind of programs, such as chat shows may even be better than other more formal kinds of program in order to see what are the strengths and weaknesses of a candidate, considering that personal characteristics of a politician has to be considered as well during an election. Diversity in kind of programs and point of views should be the main criteria to judge quality of political journalism. Legitimate programs are not only the ones that are considered as mainly informational. A pessimistic argument would even be that lots of people will not even bother getting some serious informations about candidates during an election and will base their vote on non rational aspects, without even soliciting the media to get some information. That is why a wide range of programs are available, in order to inform, entertain and emphasis civic engagement. Nevertheless politics is about performance and politicians have understood very well that making image a key factor. Kennedy was the first politician who used the TV as a mass communication tool. He managed to be more popular than Nixon by working on his ‘young man in a hurry’ image and this is partly how he won the election. He is often compared to James Dean and the rumor states that he had a really close relationship with the glamorous Marilyn Monroe… Nowadays, it is totally common that parties and politicians market and package themselves, seeking to please the media. In an age where image is extremely important, political parties are often personalized into one single person who is highly exposed in the media. Foley (2005, quoted in Kuhn, 2007, p.204) calls this phenomenon “leadership stretch” to describe how political leaders have stretched away when it comes to popular awareness and media attention. It is almost like the politicians have no choice: they are public figures and as a result they are sometimes drawn in the show business sphere. Thatcher, leader of the Conservative party in the seventies, learnt with the media guru Reece how to come over well on television. The media-ization of politics benefits to the politicians since it often works as a leadership projection. Annual party conferences are well packaged and they have become “spectacles designed for the maximization of positive press coverages” (McNair, 2003, quoted in Kuhn, 2007, p.208). The politicians apply marketing strategies and performing personal branding. They accept and benefit from the system. But political marketing results in a couple of negative consequences such as the repetition of a single message rather than an engagement in a more global debate for instance. This is a toned down politics. It has to be wondered as well to what extent it is possible to talk about politics. For instance, in France, in 2008, Sarkozy’s divorce has been hugely covered my the medias. Some of them where accused to enter to far the private life of the president but they answered that the issue was political since the private life of a president has an influence on his professional life. If some people lost faith in the politics, it may be linked with the way that the media deal with politics. If we admit that there is a media-ization of politics, it might be a good thing. Far from a paternalistic pedagogy, different kinds of programs just sprang up and allowed all the voices to be heard. But pedagogy should not turn into demagogy. A liberal system is not a justification to mediocrity. Obviously, the media are not the only one to blame. The users should regulate their own usage of a medium and they should be more responsible. Fortunately, it is still possible to watch some quality programs that resists the flattening formula or other popular shows, especially since the growth of the cable and satellite TV. There are still some solutions to avoid this system i.e. alternative media or more globally alternative lives. Those counter-culture are a kind of micro power challenging authority.

There is no universal definition about the classification of infotainment programs or tabloid coverage. The frontier is then a bit blurry. As a result, perception, unlike reason, is the only mean to know how deep was the shift. It is then hardly possible to be precise about the extent of any alleged changes in the media’s coverage of politics. Media have become the main political arena. They are now the key institution of the public sphere and the quality of both are intimately linked one to the other. But the media are not the only parties involved in the public sphere: citizens have to act responsibly as well. One should not take as granted everything seen in the media, rather show business or more serious coverages. Like Baudrillard has stated, hyperreality – i.e. the incapacity of consciousness to distinguish reality from fantasy, is not reality. “Will they not take these shadows to be reality?” Plato asks in the cave allegory. Nowadays, politics cannot be confined to news and current affairs programs anymore. Contemporary political journalism is more focused than before on performance aspect of political communication. Rather than being good or bad, legal, economic and social contexts has to be taken into account to understand fully the issue. Behind the media-ization of politics, if it is the relationship between the voters and the politicians that is considered to be not satisfying, politics may have to be redefined. Some sources of potential reforms such as the development of new technology, mainstream media practices and public policy initiatives might be a solution. To sum up, vigilance is the most important aspect that citizen should develop since they are all watchdogs.

Bibliography

Barelli, P. (2008). NiceRendezVous. NICE PRESSE Pipolisation de la vie politique française Actualité de Nice France – Information Nice Daily News, info actus de Nice, agence de presse NICE, journal en ligne,annonces,météo,flash,rencontre,. Retrieved Mar. 27, 2009, from Web site: http://www.nicerendezvous.com/FR/NICE-PRESSE-PIPOLISATION-DE-LA-VIE-POLITIQUE-FRANCAISE-n-3524.html
Callahan, L. (2009). Reality Heroes» The Ugliest Election Ever? – Politics, religion, and stuff that matters. Retrieved Mar. 27, 2009, from Web s ite: http://www.realityheroes.com/?p=36#more-36
Cockerill, M. (1997). Politics – it’s a screen test – UK Politics, UK – The Independent. Retrieved Mar. 27, 2009, from Times Online Web site: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/politics–its-a-screen-test-1274605.html
Epelboin, F. (2009). « Nous sommes tous dans une série de télé-réalité en politique » | ReadWriteWeb France. Retrieved Mar. 24, 2009, from Web site: http://fr.readwriteweb.com/2009/02/25/entrevues/tele-realite-en-politique/
Exoo, C. F. (1994). The Politics of the mass media. Minneapolis: West Publishing Company.
Faure, G. (2009). La Californie ressemble à la France (c’est pas un compliment) | Eco89. Retrieved Mar. 24, 2009, from Web site: http://eco.rue89.com/2009/02/22/la-californie-ressemble-a-la-france-cest-pas-un-compliment
“Jean Baudrillard (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)”. Retrieved Mar. 26, 2009, from Web site: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/baudrillard/
Kreis, S. (2000). Plato, “The Allegory of the Cave”. Retrieved Mar. 26, 2009, from Web site: http://www.historyguide.org/intellect/allegory.html
Kuhn, R. (2007). Politics and the media in Britain. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Mainville, E. (2009). Obama pipolisation : Crise dans les médias. Retrieved Mar. 24, 2009, from Web site: http://crisedanslesmedias.hautetfort.com/archive/2009/02/25/obama-pipolisation.html
Nouvelobs. (2008). Ségolène Royal au Zénith : les socialistes agacés, Politique – NouvelObs.com. Retrieved Mar. 27, 2009, from Web site: http://tempsreel.nouvelobs.com/actualites/politique/20080928.OBS3095/emmanuelli_raille_le_rassemblement_de_royal_entre_showb.html
Rosen, S. (2009). PressThink: Audience Atomization Overcome: Why the Internet Weakens the Authority of the Press. Retrieved Mar. 26, 2009, from Web site: http://journalism.nyu.edu/pubzone/weblogs/pressthink/2009/01/12/atomization.html
Wheeler, M. (1997). Politics and the Mass Media. Oxford: Blackwell.

La pornographie définit toute production – écrit, dessin, peinture, photographie, film, spectacle – qui vise à provoquer l’excitation sexuelle. Souvent, elle est considérée comme blessante ou dégradante pour la dignité de la personne, en raison de la présence explicite ou implicite d’éléments de contrainte, de violence physique ou psychologique, de mépris ou de déséquilibre de pouvoir. Dans de nombreux pays, sa diffusion est soumise à la loi, par un âge minimum requis ainsi que des espaces et des moments bien définis. Ainsi, la pornographie entretient des liens étroits avec la question de la morale. Dans son ouvrage, Penser la pornographie, Ruwen Ogien s’intéresse au rapport entre ces deux notions. A travers son étude, il définit le concept d’ éthique minimale. Comment envisager la pornographie autrement qu’à travers tous les clichés et les aprioris que nous en avons ? A la lecture de ce texte, quelques éléments de compréhension sont apportés au lecteur. Quelle est la justification de la stigmatisation de la pornographie par la société ? Dans cette guerre métaphysique et morale, comment Ogien nous exhorte-t-il à aller contre le moralisme personnel ?

Alors que l’idée de l’érotisme est de suggérer, de montrer l’âme à travers les corps personnifiés, la pornographie a un but totalement opposé : gros plans sur les organes génitaux, vulgarité – il s’agit de susciter les satisfactions brèves du consommateur. Face à la pornographie stigmatisée, Ruwen Ogien pose le concept d’éthique minimale. Conception qui propose de réduire la morale à trois concepts. Selon l’auteur, de nombreux libéraux devraient s’en remettre aux trois principes suivants : neutralité à l’égard des conceptions substantielles du bien, principe négatif d’éviter de causer des dommages à autrui et principe positif qui nous demande d’accorder la même valeur aux voix ou aux intérêts de chacun.
L’éthique et la morale sont deux concepts différents. La morale a une connotation religieuse, elle comporte une notion de contrôle imposée de l’extérieur, elle porte sur le bien et sur le mal et crée des obligations. L’éthique quant à elle est laïque, comporte une notion d’auto-contrôle, part de l’intérieur de la personne, porte sur le positif et le négatif, elle nous fait réfléchir et nous responsabilise.
Le juste et le bien sont également à différencier. Le juste a une dimension collective alors que le bien renvoie à la personne, à l’effet que la pornographie pourrait avoir sur l’individu.
Souvent, les détracteurs de la pornographie mettent en avant qu’elle va contre la dignité de l’homme. Porterait elle atteinte à notre qualité de personne humaine en nous présentant comme des objets ? Selon l’auteur, il s’agit d’une autre manière de parler d’ « outrage aux bonnes moeurs » ou de « troubles à l’ordre public ». La pornographie est vue comme « réifiante », « objectifiante » et « déshumanisante ». Mais au fond, qui est réifié ? Les personnages ? Les catégories représentées ? Les spectateurs ? Est-il au moins vrai que la pornographie réifie ? Si ce postulat est vrai, en quoi est-ce un problème ? Les acteurs ne peuvent être considérés comme objets puisqu’ils ne répondent pas aux critères d’absence d’autonomie, d’inertie, de violabilité, de possession et d’absence de subjectivité. Ils répondent seulement aux critères de fongibilité et d’instrumentalité. L’auteur explique que « pour un kantien, le traitement comme objet peut être acceptable tant que l’autonomie (ou le consentement) n’est pas niée ».
Si tant est que la pornographie objectifie, est-ce nécessairement un mal ? N’est ce pas au contraire une force qui lui permet de s’inscrire dans un important mouvement intellectuel ou artistique contemporain ?  Sur quelle nuisance se base-ton alors pour condamner la pornographie ?

Ce genre cinématographique auraient selon certains des effets immédiats et durables, sur  le problème de l’émancipation de la femme et sur la protection des enfants. Dans notre époque post soixante-huitarde, l’idée que la femme pourrait être un objet est violemment critiquée. Au fond, qu’il s’agisse de la femme ou de l’Homme, le problème est le même. Les corps présentés dans la pornographie ne peuvent être considérés complètement comme des objets et s’ils le sont, ce n’est pas un argument suffisant pour s’y opposer. Qu’en est-il des enfants ? La pornographie leur est interdit alors que dès treize ans ils sont considérés comme assez responsables pour aller dans des centres de correction et dès quinze ans, ils ont la majorité sexuelle. Pourquoi la pornographie ne leur serait accessible qu’à partir de dix-huit ans ? Probablement qu’elle n’intéresserait pas les tous petits et si elle intrigue les plus grand, où est le mal à vouloir satisfaire cette curiosité ? Lorsque le double cryptage a été recommandé à la télévision, pour la diffusion, au delà du comportement « laxiste » des parents ou de l’Etat, c’est le comportement des jeunes qui a été dénoncé. Au lieu de parler d’une génération violente et sans repère, ne vaudrait-il pas mieux valoriser les principes de liberté de s’informer, d’éducation dans l’autonomie et de refus du traditionalisme ?
L’auteur se propose de revenir sur trois points. Une préférence peut être injuste ou répugnante mais pourquoi le serait-elle plus si c’est un enfant qui l’exprime ? Ensuite, il explique qu’il pourrait exister des raisons normatives de défendre l’idée que « la pornographie ne doit pas détenir le monopole des moyens de satisfaire [sa] curiosité sexuelle » mais aussi des raisons du même genre de ne pas l’interdire complètement aux jeunes. Enfin, il pose la question de savoir quel prix nous sommes prêts à payer, en terme de liberté publique pour « épargner » les enfants.
Ces trois reflexions le mènent à la question des droits de l’enfant où il confronte « illégal » à « psychologiquement traumatisant » et les « dommages psychologiques aux « dommages idéologiques ». Les progressistes y sont vivement critiqués puisque dans côté, ils considèrent les enfants responsables juridiquement et sexuellement, et de l’autre, la pornographie leur est interdite. Ogien commence par prendre l’exemple des impôts : il est illégal de ne pas les payer mais ce n’est pas pour autant que le percepteur risque d’être traumatisé psychologiquement. A l’inverse, une rupture n’est pas illégale mais elle peut avoir de forts dommages psychologiques. Peut être est-ce en suivant l’opinion publique ou les moeurs que le législateur a interdit qu’un message pornographique soit diffusé s’il risque d’être vu par des mineurs. Il instaure une règle mais qui peut démontrer qu’elle est liée à un désir de prévenir des dommages psychologiques ? Le lien entre la vision de ces images et les éventuels traumatisme est-il si net ? Certes, il y a des émotions immédiates comme l’excitation ou le dégoût mais qui a prouvé qu’il y aurait des « atteintes durables à l’identité personnelles » par exemple ? Des expériences sur des enfants semblent inconcevables du point de vue de la morale, probablement car elles seraient considérées comme « violentes » même si encore une fois, l’existence de liens entre pornographie et violence est à démontrer.
Une tendance encore plus désastreuse consisterait selon l’auteur, à confondre le psychologique et l’idéologique. Dire que la pornographie encourage à dissocier les sentiments et la sexualité n’est pas un problème psychologique authentique. C’est simplement la défense d’une idéologie conventionnelle. Et de toute façon, dissocier sexualité et amour est-il plus grave que de dissocier sexualité et procréation ?

Au fond, dans ces guerres métaphysiques et morales, Ogien se positionne contre le moralisme personnel. Il fait même état de situations où le sexe est légitimé. Si l’on condamne le traitement froid du corps, il faudrait également s’en prendre aux sciences naturelles, aux documentaires et à une grande part des arts plastiques. Le corps pouvant être lui aussi un médium, nombreux sont les réalisateurs ayant montré explicitement dans leurs films des représentations répondant stylistiquement aux critères de la pornographie. Il suffit de penser à Lars von Trier, Catherine Breillat ou encore Bruno Dumont. Est-ce pour autant que leurs oeuvres ont moins de valeur ? Question rhétorique, évidemment que non. Certains films pornographiques peuvent d’ailleurs même être élevées au rang d’oeuvres, comme par exemple le film Lilith où Ovidie est réalisatrice. Dans ce film, l’héroïne a une psychologie importante à saisir pour la compréhension du film. Psychologie nécessaire et bien plus que dans des documentaires d’information ou d’éducation sexuelle : là, les sexes ne sont que sexes ! Sur de grandes chaînes familiales comme « Planète », on peut voir des sexes en activité sans même savoir à qui ils appartiennent.
Alors pourquoi ces discours de protection ? Se positionner contre la pornographie, n’est-ce finalement pas une manière de vouloir se préserver soi-même et la société ? Les pornophobes, avant de vouloir protéger leurs enfants ne voudraient-ils pas se protéger personnellement ? Dans ce cas là, la pornographie est une affaire plus privée que publique. Si ces réactions sont du pur moralisme, elles sont injustifiées du point de vue de l’éthique minimale. Vouloir faire des zones réservées à la pornographie dans les villes consisterait de la même manière à la ghettoiser, la stigmatiser. De même, quelles sont les motivations des associations dites de protection de la famille ou religieuses ? L’argument des enfants n’est-il pas un prétexte pour censurer des messages qui ne plaisent pas à ces personnes mêmes ? Les combats de ces associations peuvent même aller contre l’art ultra conceptuel. Pourquoi ces mêmes associations ne sont pas si virulentes lorsque des enfants sont victimes cette fois de pédophilie par les prêtres ? Les enfants seraient alors un prétexte pour combattre « la bête moderniste ou progressiste ».

Il convient pour finir de s’interroger sur la rigueur méthodologique d’Ogien. Lorsque l’auteur évoque la stylistique des film et leur fin, il écrit « fin de toute façon bâclée et incroyablement bien-pensante dans de nombreux films, à ce que disent les plus courageux qui ont eu la curiosité de les examiner ». Est-ce un trait d’humour ou laisse-t-il supposer que lui-même n’est jamais arrivé à la fin d’un film pornographique ? Cela voudrait-il dire qu’il écrit un essai sur un sujet qu’il ne connaît finalement même pas entièrement ? De plus, souvent, il part d’exemple précis et uniques pour expliquer son idée. L’induction est-elle le meilleur moyen pour son argumentation ? Il prend par exemple le cas d’un psychiatre spécialisé dans le développement psycho-sexuel qui affirma qu’en vingt cinq années de pratique, il n’avait jamais été confronté à des problèmes psychologiques provenant de l’exposition à la pornographie. Est-ce parce que ce médecin n’a pas rencontré de tel cas qu’effectivement ils n’existent pas ? Quand il écrit « aucun jeune, je suppose, ne s’est retrouvé aux urgences médicales après avoir vu un film ou lu un livre pornographique », on a envie de lui demander sur quoi il base ses suppositions. S’il s’était un peu plus renseigné sur le sujet, il aurait constaté qu’aux urgences, les médecins sont parfois confrontés à des cas bien étranges comme des objets tranchants coincés dans des cavités intimes. Probablement que l’idée de cette pratique n’est pas tombée de nulle part.
Des approximations sont également     présentes dans son texte. Ogien écrit, en parlant du lien entre sexe et amour, « Les jeunes d’autrefois qui, dit-on, ne séparaient pas ces choses ont-ils eu une vie sexuelle et amoureuse d’adulte plus belle, plus épanouie ? » Dit-on ? Qui est « on » ? Et de quels jeunes parle-t-on ? De quelle époque ? S’agit-il des jeunes gens qui était mariés tôt par leurs parents, ensemble, dans le seul but de capitalisation de la propriété ? Dans ce cas la réflexion de l’auteur est contestable.
De la même manière, une autre réflexion manque un peu de rigueur : « Personne ne pense à interdire la vente de bière ou de pastis sous le prétexte que les enfants risquent d’ouvrir une bouteille quand leurs parents sont au travail ou à l’hypermarché ». Justement, l’auteur a tort car la vente d’alcool est soumise à une législation stricte : certaines enseignes n’ont pas le droit d’en vendre après vingt-deux heures et dans un bar, il faut être âgé d’au moins seize ans pour consommer une boisson alcoolisée. La comparaison n’est donc pas pertinente.

A travers ce texte, Ogien montre comment il est nécessaire de repenser la pornographie, au-delà de nos a prioris qui nous incitent à la condamner radicalement. Même si l’auteur ne prend jamais clairement position, il montre que les arguments des pornophobes sont facilement contestables. La pornographie est plus une affaire privée qu’une affaire publique. Nous devons envisager notre rapport à elle de manière individuelle. Si certains la considèrent comme dangereuse, elle peut aussi être pour d’autres un élément d’épanouissement comme le montrent les recherches actuelles des porn studies aux Etats-Unis.

Prisons are currently in a critical situation as a journalist has recently written in The Guardian (Dyer 2007). However, during past two hundred years, they have emerged as a key component of the criminal system justice, after humanitarian ideologies have grown. Prisons are often seen as “the punishment”, “the default sanction” although the other kinds of punishment are only alternatives. In our individual, rational and secular society, the deprivation of liberty is the most severe punishment. Between 1992 and 2005, in England and Wales, there has been an increase of over 60% in the number of prisoners even if it was not matched by any comparable increase in rates of crime (Coyle 2005, p.2). But currently, there is a crisis in prisons, because of different factors including containment, visibility, authority and legitimacy. So, this essay will wonder why society still have prisons. First, it will critically assess and evaluate the justification of the existence of the prisons in modern society. Then, it will try to understand the sociological approach to the problem. In a third part, it will identify the effectiveness of alternatives to custody, focusing on the thesis of the abolitionists.

First, this essay will try to understand why prisons exist in modern society. When someone commits a criminal act, people think that something has to be done, because they want to be reassured, and currently, prisons are probably the first thing they think about. The huge influence of Human Rights lead to consider the prison as the most respectful punishment, instead of the death penalty or corporal punishment which are an attempt to stuffiness and which does not solve the problem. Even though, this essay will show later that others kinds of sanctions do exist. Public humiliations are not the norm currently because the public may be more sensitive about that: many people have been disturbed by the video of the execution of Saddam Hussein. Using the prisons is as well an easier way to deal with possible miscarriages of justice, where death penalty fails. Historically, it is also important to refer to reduction in the use of transportation in the early nineteenth century, which means the exile from one’s community (Coyle 2005, p.27). Society uses prisons instead of something else but it is a choice. Sometimes, some people are in prison even if they have not been judged by a court. Some people can experience immediate imprisonment, detention or suspended sentence of imprisonment: this is called “custody”. It can be wondered if women, youths or old people have their place in prisons. But, most important, we should consider the reasons given by the society toward the use of prisons.

Prisons have different aims. The “Gladstone Report”, made in 1895 explains that “prison treatment should have as its primary and concurrent objects deterrence and reformation” (Coyle 2005, p.30). In 2003, the Prison Service highlighted the aim “to deliver an effective execution of the sentences of the courts so as to reduce re-offending and protect the public” (Coyle 2005, p.48). But other less official justifications exist. An aim of the prison is deterrence, which means that people would probably not commit a crime if they know that it can lead to spend the rest of their life in a jail. It makes the offender himself fearful of committing another crime. This is a prevention measure. Then, there is retribution punishment: a price should be paid for crime. The people who have committed a crime are punished because they deserve it. Mathiesen (2000) explains that all the undesirable, unproductive and disruptive people are found in prisons. It is ass well important to mention rehabilitation: prisons are supposed to bring a moral or behavioural change in the offender. At least on the paper, prison could reduce the incidence of crime because it takes a form that will improve the character of the offenders. Different programs exist e.g. sex offenders can be told to go to therapy. But the paradox is that in prisons, 50-60% people have been there before (Smith and Natalier 2005 p.173). In addition, the question that has to be asked is how people can prove that they have changed. And as Goffman (1968) asks, it is important to wonder if prisons might play more a part in debilitation than in rehabilitation: when people become free, they have to rebuild their self, which is not easy. Another aim is the incapacitation: it is impossible or difficult to re-offend. People are kept away from the society and though from committing crime. Mathiesen (2000) states that it diverts the attention of lowing worker class from lower crimes. But it is not always a public protection; for instance, heroine dealers are usually quickly replaced so the problem is not solved. However, prisons are now ruled by some key performance indicators and some targets such as security, justice and control. There is a gap between what prisons are supposed to achieve and what really happen.

The etymology of “prisons” is “to seize” in Latin. Exploring the repertoire of people writing about prisons, leads to notice that some expressions are quite depreciative: “human warehousing” connotes the storage as “holding pan”. Most of the people totally agree with the concept of prison but want it to be far from them, “N.I.M.B.”, “not in my backyard”. But the aim of the prisons is hopefully not only to contain people. People probably have a wrong idea of what prisons are because of the clichés in the media, from soap-operas to general articles in newspapers. Although prisons are supposed to solve the problem of crime, sometimes, they can lead to further criminality: its ideological construction is reinforced. Prisoners may have a will of revenge and jails are a school of crime where people can easily exchange their criminal knowledges. Furthermore, sometimes, it stigmatizes more the people than it helps them. Social division in society is reinforced. And as society are focused on prisons, our attention is distracted from crimes of the powerful. There are several incoherences in the penal system. As Pat O’Malley (1999, quoted in Matthews and Roger, 2003, p.225) explains, at one moment, society can take reprehension measures on drugs and in another, some illegal drugs can be virtually decriminalized. Thomas (1972, quoted in Coyle 2005, p.30) highlights another paradox: deterrence and reformation cannot work together because the first implies a punitive and coercitive environment although the former is the result of an environment which encourages individual development and change. Many thinkers as well have tried to get a better understanding of prisons.

Sociology can help to understand the justification of the prisons. In different places and at different times, societies have used several kinds of penal strategies. Currently, political authority is legitimated by using the Enlightenment notion of “social contract” (Cavadino and Dignan 1997, p.46). It “provides a philosophical foundation for the existence and power of the modern state” (Held 1984, quoted in Smith and Natalier 2005, p.12). This means that people should give up with some of their liberties if they want to be protected by the State. If people commit crimes, they will go to prison but after a time of punishment, they will be able to re-enter the society as citizen. The social order, maintained by culture and power is necessary because it maintains peace in the society. Durkheim (quoted in Garland 1990, p.24) talks about “collective conscience”: prisons are the result of a moral phenomenon because society requires a moral framework. He explains that vengeance is the primary motivation which underpins punitive actions so the explanation is not totally rational and owns much to the Christian theology of sin, guilt, punishment, expiation and redemption (Coyle 2005, pp.19-20). But it is possible to make a critic of Durkheim’s theory because it is no longer the society who punishes but more a specific state apparatus. Nevertheless, prisons are linked to social structure and economy.

A cynical argument would be to asset that prisons are the result of the capitalist society: in order to keep the labour force, it is better to siphon it off than to kill it. But, it is as well the most expensive kind of punishment: it costs £37,305 per person and per year to keep someone in prison and this money can be used for other purposes such as education. Currently, prisons are an industry and both public and private prisons do exist. Sometimes, firms hire out prison labour to do different products. The Marxist theory highlights the relation between the dominant class and subordinate class, which is exploited. Penalty serves to articulate state power, to protect the rich people and to legitimate the use of power in controlling political dissent, according to Marx (Smith and Natalier 2005, p.19). Similarly, criminal justice encourages people to work instead of begging or stealing and criminal law limits unrest arising from social inequality because revolution is more difficult. Prisons could be seen as an instrument of class control where inequalities are reproduced and emphasised. But he Marxist theory, highly influenced by political and economic beliefs presents an important pattern of determination as being an exclusive one. And whereas Marxism states that punishment reinforces class division and ruling class dominance, Durkheim thinks that it reinforces solidarity which is not class based. But it is the beginning of a more global reflexion about power.

It can be interesting to understand what punishment tells about the distribution of dominance. Sometimes, society deals more with sense than reason when it comes about punishment. Though, prisons can be seen as revenge. Prisons serve the interests of the powerful and any group who challenge them are kept under tight control and regulation. Law is used to legitimate the use of prisons. In different times and in different places, people who were incarcerated have been there for different reasons. As a reminder, Baudelaire and Sade have been imprisoned. On the other hand, during war condition, some individuals have killed thousands of people without going into prison. Our culture legitimates who is a criminal and has the power to decide who has to go to prison. It is important to consider as well the issue of legitimacy, that it to look to the claim made within the distribution of power to justify authority. Weber explains that there are three kinds of power: charismatic, legal rational and traditional. And all systems of power use legitimacy. Michel Foucault has worked a lot on the power issue, a system and regulation which is imposed upon a population. He shows that sovereign power replaced with disciplinary power. With his well-known metaphor of the Panopticon, Foucault analyzes the self-regulation of the behaviour due to the fact that people cannot tell if they are subject to the gaze of a guard: “The major effect of the Panopticon: to induce in the inmate a state of conscious and permanent visibility that assures the automatic functioning of power” (Foucault quoted in Smith and Natalier 2005, p.29). The justification for the prisons is present in our every-day discourses, through which knowledge are reproduced. The rise of community corrections allows the expansion of state power to be hidden and really softly, control masked. Foucault states that the defects of the prison have all been recognised and criticized from as early as 1820s up to the present day while they are deeply rooted in our society. He explains this contradiction by arguing that prisons divide working class against themselves, enhance the fear of the prison and thus guarantee the authority and power of the police (Garland 1990, p.150). But people should keep it mind that this is reductionist to think that prisons are only a tool of power.

Waddington notices that when it is used inappropriately prison can be “an expensive way of making bad people worse” (Home Office 1990, quoted in Coyle 2005, p.174). So, the questions which have to be asked is if society can get rid of prisons altogether, and if it should. This essay will consider the thesis of the abolitionists and then, try to understand what can be done instead of using prisons. Some people points out the crisis of legitimacy, referring to prisons as others question if the use of power is morally justified and if, generally, prisons are efficient. Prisons cost money, they are morally degrading, they do not solve the problems and they enhance the division which exists in society. Consequently, it has to be considered why society still uses them. Abolitionists are pro human rights and they promote a positive response to social harm: they state that it should not and cannot be regulated effectively by criminal law and thus, that “the role of criminal justice system should be radically reduced” (De Haan 1991, p.203). They think that prisons only worsen problems and thus that they are counter productive, theory which was outlined by Foucault. The appropriate reaction toward crime, which is a result of the social order, is not punishment, according to them. Thus, they are for depenalisation, decriminalisation, decarceration, diversion, decategorisation, delegation and deprofessionalisation (Cohen 1988). Their approach of the problem of prisons is essentially reflexive. They point out an ethical paradox and wonder if it is logical to solve violence by another form of violence. The relationship between crime and its control is complex and society take the risk to degrade and to segregate people, by sending them to jail. It could be seen as simplistic and absurd to want to compensate one pain by another that society inflicts on the prisoner. In addition, while the criminal is blamed, the victim is ignored most of the time.

Abolitionists propose different alternatives to prisons. They laud more mutuality, more solidarity and a social regulation which would work semi-autonomously. They are in favour of social policy rather than crime control policy, compensation rather than retaliation, reconciliation rather than blame allocation. To sum up, they are more for inclusion than exclusion. They defend the idea of an informal justice, considering that criminal justice system necessitates decentralization with neighbourhood courts as replacement. They assert that crime control is not the solution. However, a wide variety of solutions exist toward each problem: violence is a social problem yet propriety crime is an economic problem. Criticised by some feminists who were wondering what should be done about rape criminals or violent persons towards women, abolitionists answer that prison can only reinforce the misogynistic behaviour of individuals and though that it is not the solution. It can be can stated that their vision of the world is quite naïve and idealistic. Even so, they define themselves as pragmatic. This theory has many strengths: it is more ethical, there is a wide variety of responses to each problem and social policy is a bride concept. Nevertheless, it is not possible to omit to stress some weaknesses: abolitionism sounds like a Utopia, the approach is essentially reflexive and the risk of such a practice could lead to social chaos. It is probably impossible to achieve a kind of program such as social policies. It is not obvious that crime prevention would be more successful with non punitive measures. And the question to be asked is how justice is possible in an unjust society. But in any case, the theory of abolitionists helps to rethink and redefine prisons.

There are other alternatives than totally getting rid of prisons. Instead of minimising state intervention: it could be possible to think about a punishment more effective, responsive and accountable. This essay will try to consider some examples. Probation means that court can be persuaded that punishment was inexpedient, regarding both to the character of the offender and the nature of the offence. This is an important alternative to custody. It can be community penalties. Another solution is the rehabilitation, which means that offenders can be cured of their criminality by the provision of training and treatment. Then, it is a benefit for the society. Another punishment possible is the re-integrative shaming which means that offenders should be shamed and that they should accept they have committed something wrong. After this period, which is not supposed to be exclusion or stigmata, the society could readmit them, helped by reintegration. Another concept is “restorative justice”: repairing instead of punishing. The word “reparation” is used when someone makes amends for the damage caused by the offence, considering that it can take various forms. Other intermediate sanctions exist: community corrections, periodic detention, home detention, suspended sentences, fines, electronic monitoring and so on. There are several advantages of using them: minor offenders are protected from the potential harm of imprisonment, a wide range of sentencing options are available, it could help to save money, it can solve the problem of overcrowded prisons and this is good for rehabilitation. In Japan, only the most dangerous offenders are imprisoned: as a result, a low crime rate is observed (Smith and Natalier 2005, p.190). But it is certain that this kind of alternative punishment can work for people such as psychopaths or people immersed in a strong subculture. So prisons should be rethought. The conclusion of the Woolf Report was that “a stable system prison should be built on three interdependent pillars: security, control and justice” (Coyle 2005, p.37). But it takes time for the things to change: even if the principal recommendations have been accepted by the government, it has not provided any timetable about how and when the prisons will radically change.

To sum up, the prisons has to be legitimate with the public, the penal staff and the penal subjects. It is not the role of the people to give the justification: they should be clear and obvious. This essay have shown that prisons are a really important issue in our society: the use of imprisonment has increased as courts have been committing more offenders to prisons with longer sentences. The society gives some justification about it but our attitude toward penal institutions is ambiguous. Sociology helps to understand it better, highlighting the role of the social contract and the issue money and power. But some theorists try to find some alternatives to custody e.g. the abolitionists or others, who have brand ideas but that have to be critically evaluated. If prisons are ineffective, too cruel, incoherent or too expensive, since corporal punishment is not acceptable anymore and because killing people is a morally problematic, it is essential to consider the new initiatives in punishment. Because what is really striking is the fact that “prisons exist and continue to be used, but there is no coherent or overarching framework explaining why we have them, how they should be organised and what they should do with offenders.” (Smith and Natalier 2005, p.175).

References:

Cavadino, M and Dignan, J. 1997. The Penal System. London: Sage
Coyle, A. 2005. Understanding Prisons: Key Issues in Policy and Practice. Berkshire: Open University press
De Haan, W. Abolitionism and Crime Control: a Contradiction in Term in Stenson, K. 1991. The Politics of Crime Control. London: Sage
Dyer, C. 16/11/2007. Longer sentences have led to jail crisis says top judge – The Guardian [online] Available from : http://politics.guardian.co.uk/homeaffairs/story/0,,2212162,00.html [Accessed 16 November 2007]
Garland, D. 1990. Punishment and Modern Society. Oxford: Oxford University Press
Goffman, E. 1968 Asylums. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Matthews, R and Young, J. 2003. The New Politics of Crime and Punishment. Cullompton: William Publishing
Smith, P and Natalier K. 2005. Understanding Criminal Justice: Sociological Perspectives. London: Sage Publications LTD