Abu Ghraib as a Sex Scandal: The Sexual and Visual Politics of Neoliberalism
by Lindsay Riedel
B.A. in Social Sciences and Women’s Studies, May 2008, California State University San Marcos
A Thesis submitted to
The Faculty of Columbian College of Arts and Sciences of The George Washington University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts
January 31, 2012
Thesis directed by
Jennifer C. Nash Assistant Professor of American Studies and Women’s Studies
Acknowledgments
I wish to acknowledge my thesis advisor Dr. Jennifer C. Nash, to whom I owe my deepest gratitude. This paper would not have been possible without her thoughtful guidance, inspirational encouragement and patient support. It was an honor to work with
Dr. Nash and I feel fortunate to have had the opportunity to learn from her.
Also, I would like to thank Heather Berg, my colleague and fellow graduate student, and Todd Ramlow, Adjunct Professor of Women’s Studies, for their support and assistance, especially during the research stages of the project.
I am grateful for Dr. Rachel Riedner, Associate Professor of Writing. I appreciate her time and effort during the final stages of the writing process.
I would also like to thank my family and friends for their patience and support throughout the project. Specifically, I am grateful for all the encouragement and support from Tevan Riedel, my mother, and Ed Jose, my uncle.
ii Abstract of Thesis
Abu Ghraib As A Sex Scandal: The Sexual And Visual Politics Of Neoliberalism
My analysis is focused on the visual and sexual politics of the media coverage and public response to the military sex scandal commonly referred to as Abu Ghraib within a neoliberal context. The purpose of this project is to address a gap in current academic scholarship regarding the sexual and visual politics of neoliberalism. With an emphasis on the role of the state in the regulation and policing of public discourses of sexuality, I apply an analysis of the production and consumption of sex scandals in the United States to interrogate the relationship between sexual and visual politics of neoliberalism.
Specifically, I analyze the ways in which desire, taboo and fantasy are policed in media coverage and public reaction to the Abu Ghraib military sex scandal in an effort to understand how sex scandals function in a public culture of sex. My research is guided by an interest in public culture of sex that is produced by discourses of sexuality that create knowledges of sex, especially the ways in which it is policed by neoliberal politics.
iii Table of Contents
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ...... II
ABSTRACT OF THESIS ...... III
TABLE OF CONTENTS ...... IV
PREFACE ...... 1
CHAPTER 1 ...... 6
ABU GHRAIB AS A MILITARY (SEX) SCANDAL ...... 6
NEOLIBERALISM: SOCIAL GOVERNANCE AND THE AMERICAN DREAM ...... 14
A HISTORY OF MORALISM, CENSORSHIP AND NEOLIBERALISM ...... 25
CHAPTER 2 ...... 31
THE VISUAL LANGUAGE OF ABU GHRAIB ...... 31
FEAR, TABOO AND DESIRE ...... 37
CHAPTER 3 ...... 50
THE LEGACY OF ABU GHRAIB ...... 50
REFERENCES ...... 53
iv
Preface
When CBS News and The New Yorker published the first photographs of the Abu
Ghraib scandal in April, 2004, they initiated worldwide discussion and debate about torture, institutional accountability, fear and human rights (Introduction, 2006; Enloe,
2007). How do we define torture and when is it acceptable? When do acceptable torture procedures become unacceptable violations of human rights? Who is responsible for defining and policing the distinction and how do we prosecute the interrogator(s)-turned- perpetrator(s) of human rights violations? However, noticeably absent from the public conversation was a critical discussion of sex, especially sexuality discourse independent of sex-as-humiliation and torture discussions.1 The absence of critical discussions of sexuality is symptomatic of a larger public culture of sex2 within which sexuality discourse is governed to maintain heteronormative boundaries of knowledges of sex.
This project employs a discursive approach that combines a socio-historical interrogation of the politics of production and consumption of sex scandal discourse with
“scandal storytelling,”3 a technique distinguished by an analytical focus on sexual norms, institutional operations and the relations of the news media. Specifically, my analysis is focused on the visual and sexual politics of the media coverage and public response to the military sex scandal commonly referred to as Abu Ghraib within a neoliberal context. The
1 The sex-as-humiliation and torture discourse functions to frame the discussion within very specific boundaries of the types of sexuality being represented. 2 Public culture of sex (i.e. public sexual culture) “changes the nature of sex, like public intellectual culture changes the nature of thought, creating sexual knowledges which can be made cumulative and circulate” (Warner, 1999, p 178). For more information about the public culture of sex compared to a culture of public sex, see Warner (1999), especially page 178. 1 purpose of this project is to address a gap in current academic scholarship regarding the sexual and visual politics of neoliberalism.4 The sexual politics of neoliberalism are generally characterized by complex relationships between the economic and the socio- sexual within a matrix of institutional power and individual agency5 that are understudied and generally unacknowledged6. Furthermore, there is very little discussion of the ways in which sexual politics are communicated and how it materializes in the U.S. With an emphasis on the role of the state in the regulation and policing of public discourses of sexuality, I apply an analysis of the production and consumption of sex scandals in the
United States to interrogate the relationship between sexual and visual politics of neoliberalism. Specifically, I analyze the ways in which desire, taboo and fantasy are policed in media coverage and public reaction to the Abu Ghraib military sex scandal in an effort to understand how sex scandals function in a public culture of sex.
My research is guided by an interest in public culture of sex that is produced by discourses of sexuality that create public knowledges of sex, especially the ways in which it is policed by neoliberal politics and with what effect. In a Foucauldian sense, I am interested in the ways in which sex is “put into the discourse”7 and how the process reveals
3 See Gamson in Public Affairs for a detailed explanation of “scandal storytelling” (2004, p 41). 4 Because neoliberalism is a relatively new field of study, it is difficult to identify past research. For information about sexuality research studies that do not explicitly name neoliberalism, but which could be applicable to future research on neoliberalism, see: D’Emilio & Freedman, 1997; Duggan: 1990, 2002, 2003; Rubin, 1984. 5 In “Gay Shame and BDSM Pride,” Margot Weiss identifies the sexual politics of neoliberalism a framework defined by relationships “between the economic and the sexual, the body and the social body, and individual private life and the collective management of resources" (2008, p. 90). 6 Several authors discuss the sexual politics of neoliberalism without ever naming it as such. See: Apostolidis and Williams, 2004 (especially page 15); Power, 2010; Warner, 1999; Butler, 2006; Dean, 2004. This is evidence that work has been done on the sexual politics of neoliberalism before the field of study had a vocabulary. I urge that the scholarship be valued for its contributions to the field of neoliberalism despite the lack of explicit association. 7 See Foucault, 1978. 2 operations of power. In other words, how do the associations of Abu Ghraib photographs with sadomasochistic pornography in national media affect public knowledges of sexuality? How do the institutional and individual internalizations and externalizations of images and sexual norms affect one another and thus, influence the public culture of sex?
Additionally, I am interested in exploring productions of “truth” and how language is controlled to influence a collective public knowledge of sex: what are the discourses of desire, taboo and/or fantasy and how are they communicated? If “sex” is a category through which social norms are produced8, what how does public/publicized sex (i.e. sex scandals) affect notions of the public/private division of a socially organized society? In other words, did the public-ness of Abu Ghraib as a sex scandal challenge the private-ness of sex? Additionally, how is a knowledge of sex9 expressed in public spaces? Alternatively, is sex “knowable?” And lastly, how does publicized/public sex10 function to reinforce and/or subvert hegemonic neoliberal politics? Through a discussion of Abu Ghraib discourse, I interrogate sites of power and resistance that aim to intervene in the construction of a public culture of sex.
The analysis is predicated on the Butler’s notion of materiality and performativity.
In opposition to the belief that sex is biologically determined, she explains that sex is socially constructed through a performativity with the end goal of achieving materialized identity (Butler, 1993). She explains that sex and bodies are materialized through the performativity of one’s sex, which is understood as a form of discourse that is reiterative and never complete (1993). Cornell echoes this conceptual framework when she explains
8 Butler explains that “the category of ‘sex’ is… a ‘regulatory ideal’” that “not only functions as a norm but is part of a regulatory practice that produces the bodies it governs” (1993, p. 1). 9 See Warner (1999) for a discussion of “knowledge of sex” in a public culture of sexuality. 3 that sex and gender identities are “never something ‘out there’” and that these identities
“effectively determine who we can be as men and women” (2003, p. 144). This “subjective aspect of sexual identity”11 refers to the “the process through which we internalize both an image and a set of norms that shape who we are as well as who we desire and love" (Cornell, 2003, p. 144). The concept of materiality supports the basic premise that identities are formed and produced through social interaction and language production (i.e. internalization and externalization), but materiality locates agency within the process of performativity and emphasizes the reiteration necessary to maintain and stabilize identity over time. Thus, my analysis assumes that social identities, institutions and power structures are materialized and maintained through repetitive processes of performativity.
I find Butler’s model for analysis especially useful in discussions about feminization as a military interrogation tactic and gender identity within Abu Ghraib discourse. For example, the photographs of Pfc. Lynndie England leading a detainee around by a leash created media backlash that described her as a sadist, masochist,
“hillbilly slut,” (Gourevitch, 2009) and dominatrix (Weiss, 2009). Alternatively, the media’s criticisms of Cpl. Charles Graner, the alleged “ring-leader” of Abu Ghraib, rarely, if ever, focused on his sexual behavior or performance during the scandal. In other words, the critical discourse about Graner primarily centered on his behavior as a soldier, whereas
England was scrutinized for her behavior as a woman. The discrepancy is evidence of the way that public discourse aims to govern gender identity by shaming England for her perceived violation of her “appropriate” gender role. On the other hand, Graner was doing
10 See Warner (1999) for “culture of public sex” differentiated from a “public culture of sex” (p. 178). 11 The “subjective aspect” is in reference to the internalization and externalization of images and norms that Judith Butler explains in Gender Trouble (2006). 4 what the public expects men to do in wartime: “have sex and wield violence” (2004).
The first chapter demonstrates the conflicted relationship between sex scandals and the politics of neoliberalism that aim to regulate and limit the representation of sex and resulting discourse of sexuality. First, I clarify the socio-historical context of the project by discussing the political and social climate that affects the production and consumption of a public culture of sex. Then, I discuss the characteristics, functions and effects of sex scandals in the United States, followed by a review of the military sex scandal known as
Abu Ghraib. Last, I illustrate the role and function of neoliberal politics in the United States as a security state and in relation to the corporate media system as language police.
Chapter 2 explores the content of Abu Ghraib images in the context of the public conversation about Abu Ghraib photos as pornography or torture and the political and cultural ramifications of both conceptualizations. A review of the literature reveals an inadequate analysis of the eroticism of Abu Ghraib, which I located primarily within the consumption (as opposed to the production) of images. Applying Linda Williams’ theoretical framework regarding the relationship of fear, taboo and desire, I interrogate the eroticism of Abu Ghraib images and the corporate media’s role as facilitator of the erotic.
Chapter 3 interrogates the role of sexuality discourse as a result of sex scandal in the media. In this section, I argue that while sex scandal discourse coverage could seem subversive to the neoliberal political goals, it also functions to reproduce heteronormative boundaries that define the moralist public culture of sex.
5
Chapter 1
Abu Ghraib as a Military (Sex) Scandal
Depending on the context of the scandal, the resulting discourse and societal effects can take many forms. For example, a misuse of political campaign funds will capture the public attention differently than allegations of a politician’s infidelity.1 What makes a sex scandal? How can we explain the difference in the volume of media coverage and urgency of reports regarding political (non-sexual) scandals as opposed to political sex scandals?2
Why, according to Warner, is publicized sex “scandal or nothing”?3 Because the study of sex scandals is a relatively new field,4 it remains understudied; however, Apostolidis and
Williams explain “analyzing sex scandals can reveal historically distinctive constructions of the public/private divide, shedding light on those elements of privacy [that have] become especially generative of the power that constitutes public agency” (2004, p. 9). For this reason, I argue that Abu Ghraib is not only a military scandal, but also a sex scandal, a distinction that identifies sex as a primary defining characteristic and foregrounds my assertion that moral panic rhetoric frames the public discussion of Abu Ghraib. I aim to show how the discourse produced within state security politics reveals complex
1 For example, see Gamson, 2004. 2 Question posed in article: “This Won’t be the Last Political Scandal” by Thomas A. Foster: http://hnn.us/articles/48305.html. 3 In Trouble with Normal, Warner asserts that “publics seem to have no way of recognizing sex as ordinary or diverse,” thus publicized sexual behavior is perceived as “scandal or nothing” (Warner, 1999, p. 17). 4 To be clear, sex scandals are not a new phenomenon in U.S. culture. Apostolidis and Williams explain that “prior to the 1980s, leaders in politics and journalism minimized public discourse about sexual hijinks of …principal figures in national politics,” (which they illustrate with examples like Thomas Jefferson’s affair with his slave Sally Hemings and John F. Kennedy’s “notorious indulgences”) (2004, p. 4). Rather, it is the “American society’s willingness and desire to talk about it” that has changed (Apostolidis and Williams, 2004, p. 7). 6 relationships between agency and structure, and language and power at the center of the visual and sexual politics of neoliberalism through an analysis of the ways in which public knowledge of Abu Ghraib was produced.
By definition, a sex scandal is characterized by a public figure whose sexual activities are publicized and subsequently scrutinized in public discourse and typically perceived as a violation or transgression of social norms and moral values (Gamson, 2004;
Apostolidis and Williams, 2004; Warner, 1999). Although both transgression and publicity are necessary for the production of a sex scandal, national broadcast is central for the elevation of a morally objectionable sexual behavior to public scandal (Apostolidis and
Williams, 2004). To put it another way, Apostolidis and Williams explain that "every scandal thus involves a double boundary crossing: the violation of the norm involved in the scandalous act itself and that acts exceptional manifestation before the public" (2004, p. 4).
Why frame Abu Ghraib as a sex scandal and not simply a military scandal? One of the predominant critiques of Abu Ghraib media coverage is that a focus on the sexual content of the photograph functions to depoliticize via spectacularizing and exceptionalizing the behavior, which I explain is the result of moralist, anti-sexual freedom strategies5 that frame the public culture of sex and define the boundaries of discussion; subsequently, the media coverage obscures the larger issues of institutional power and accountability that are central to the discussion (Weiss, 2009; Sontag, 2004). Although I acknowledge the legitimacy of this critique, I argue in favor of a critical analysis of sexual
5 For example, Nina Power argues that the rhetorical separation of sex from one’s daily body experience in public discourse facilitates a social and political devaluing of sexual experience (2009). 7 content that incorporates the social, political and historical context, thereby legitimating the relationship between the sexual and political rather than a reinforcing the separation.
To illustrate the distinction between Abu Ghraib as military scandal and as military sex scandal, consider the media coverage of a similar event in September of 2010; known as the Stryker scandal,6 five army personnel allegedly killed Afghan civilians “for sport” and photographed their activities (McGreal, 2010). Like Abu Ghraib, the photographs of the torture and mutilation of bodies were publicized alongside statements of condemnation and outrage in national media. Also, the “Stryker” soldiers described the torture as “fun” and “as entertainment” (McGreal, 2010); similarly, Abu Ghraib military intelligence specialist Armin Cruz allegedly described the abuse and torture as recreational, “for entertainment,” and Cpl. Charles Graner said it was “for sport, for laughs” (Sarracino &
Scott, 2008, p. 141). Despite these correlations, however, a LexusNexus search7 returned less than 100 stories about Stryker, compared to over a 1,000 for Abu Ghraib. Although there are many factors that could help explain the difference in media coverage (including the relative newness of the Stryker scandal), the coverage of Stryker has not dominated the news like Abu Ghraib. Immediately after the publication of the first photographs, Abu
Ghraib images saturated the broadcast and print news for months and stories of newly uncovered photos and prosecutions peppered the media for more than a year. The primary difference between the two is that the Stryker photographs lacked the sexual component of
Abu Ghraib photos. Because neoliberalism relies on control of language and production of
6 For information about the details of the alleged abuses, see McGreal (2010). 7 The LexusNexus search was conducted on March 15, 2011, with wide parameters set to include all print and broadcast news. I used the search terms “Stryker,” and “Stryker scandal” to find publicity of the 2010 scandal and “Abu Ghraib” for coverage of the 2003-2004 events. 8 sexuality discourse to obscure the ways in which neoliberal power operates8, the lack in
“Stryker” is especially significant. Also, without the sexual component to obscure operations of power, there is increased incentive for the corporate media (as an instrument of neoliberalism9) to suppress the scandal in order to direction attention away from structures of power. Ultimately, this observation lends credence to the assertion that torture is not the central issue10 of the Abu Ghraib scandal (Eisenman 2007).
The significance of sex scandal discourse and the subsequent impact on socio- political sexual identity construction can be illustrated by examining the effects and functions of media coverage. Typically, sex scandals in the media conform to a formulaic script, which begins with “an accusation or revelation,” followed by the public broadcast and a “denial and/or confession,” on behalf of the accused, and “frequently, a comeback or attempted comeback"11 (Gamson, 2004, p 40). However, a critical examination of the content and production of discourse within the predictable patterns of narrative progression reveal sites of conflict. For example, Warner asserts that coverage of the Clinton-Lewinsky scandal was characterized by “both fascinated pleasure and moralistic aversion12 – the combination that created the sense of scandal in the first place” (1999, p. 23). Warner explains that this conflict is symptomatic of American society’s propensity to be
8 A comprehensive discussion of language as power and as a tool of neoliberal governance is forthcoming in the section titled “Neoliberalism.” 9 A discussion of the relationship between corporate media and neoliberal power is forthcoming in the following section, titled “Neoliberalism.” 10 In 2004 Gallop Poll, 54% of Americans report feeling “bothered a great deal” by the torture and human rights violations of Abu Ghraib, but only a year later in 2005, that percent dropped to 40 (Eisenman, 2007, p. 8). Also see the discussion about post-scandal inconsistencies: “Is the Political Sex Scandal Dead?” at http://rt.com/usa/news/usa-political-sex-scandal/ 11 For example, the 1998 Clinton-Lewinsky affair illustrates the script, including an attempted comeback by Bill Clinton (Dean, 2004). 12 Warner is referencing a form of cultural anxiety manifesting as sexual tension, which I discuss in relation to fear, desire and visual politics in chapter two of this project. 9 simultaneously “sex obsessed” and “sex phobic,” (1999, p. 17). Similar to Warner’s description of the Clinton-Lewinsky sex scandal as a form of “sexual McCarthyism”13 I argue that the Abu Ghraib coverage aimed to demonize the lower-ranking U.S. soldiers to direct attention away from the responsible people in positions of power and ethical inquiries of U.S. military war-time policies (1999, p. 19).
Primarily, current scholarship constructs sex scandals as “spectacle,” or
“entertainment,” likening media coverage to soap opera dramas and Hollywood-type movie plots14 (Dean, 2004; Varon, 2004; Gamson, 2004; McChesney, 2001). For example, Jodi
Dean characterizes the Clinton-Lewinsky Starr Report15 as spectacle, characterized as a
"circus,” “sideshow,” and “carnival,” “as anything but serious, rational discussion of important constitutional questions" (Dean, 2004, p 262). The sex-scandal-as-spectacle position argues that the spectacularized and sensationalized scandal functions to displace news coverage of politically relevant current events and to distract from critical discussions of the institutional power structures at play (Dean, 2004; Smith, 2009; Weiss, 2009; Puar,
2004, 2005). Informed by Guy DeBord’s “Society of the Spectacle”,16 Jeremy Varon identifies the spectacle as “part of the genetic structure of the scandal” (p. 235), characterized by the overproduction of images (p. 242) and mass, constant viewership
(2004, p. 243). In a Foucauldian way, the images are always already there to frame the
13 In Trouble with Normal, Warner explains that the Clinton-Lewinsky sex scandal created a moral panic that functioned as form of “sexual McCarthyism” through the “the alignment of prudery, prosecution and publicity” (Warner, 1999, p. 19). 14 For an example of scandal-as-spectacle, see “14 Political Scandals that Should be Made into Adult Films” at http://blog.koldcast.tv/2010/koldcast-news/14-political-scandals-that-should-be-made-into-adult-films/ 15 Starr Report is a publication that resulted from an investigation into the Clinton-Lewinsky affair (Dean, 2004). 16 The form of “spectacle,” discussed in DeBord’s article is conceptualized as a larger system rather than a descriptive function, which is the way I apply “spectacle” in this project. For the full-text of the article, see http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/debord/society.htm. 10 production of discourse.
A thorough analysis of the politics of production and consumption of sexuality discourse is predicated on the assumption that sex scandals are socially constructed.
Popular discussions that focus on the details of the transgression or the outcome of the scandal often oversimplify the socio-political context. For example, sex scandal as a
“public disgrace," is common in media coverage and focuses on the ways in which the scandal negatively affects the reputation17 of the primary participants, especially the leading
(male)18 public figure (Apostolidis and Williams, 2004). As “a discursive construct” and
“cultural production,” the scandal is depoliticized and spectacularized in public discourse, which encourages moralist rhetoric that obscures the complex nature of scandals
(Apostolidis and Williams, 2004, p 23). Sex scandals function politically to mobilize the public against sexual dissent by reinforcing discourse of naturalized sexual norms (Warner,
1999) and the value of distinctly private and public spheres (Apostolidis & Williams,
1994). Additionally, it functions to secure (social) conditions that “prevent [sexual] variation or prevent the knowledge of such possibilities from circulating” (Warner, 1999, p.
14).
In review, sex scandals are characterized by an identifiable public figure who transgressed normative sexual boundaries and whose behavior was publicized. However,
Abu Ghraib as a sex scandal is complicated by the fact that the photographs implicate the
U.S. Soldiers but the soldiers deflect through reports that they were simply “following
17 Notably, media coverage of sex scandals as a public disgrace do not analyze the social norms that construct the boundaries of “reputation” that is central to the trope. 18 Media coverage of sexual indiscretions by public figures is almost entirely made up of men as primary actors. See “Why Women Don’t Have Sex Scandals,” by Rebecca Danna: http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-12-11/why-women-dont-have-sex-scandals/full/# 11 orders” (Gourevitch, 2009). Who is responsible for the alleged atrocities committed at Abu
Ghraib prison? Using prosecution and severity of sentencing as a ruler, Cpl. Charles Graner
Jr., who received a ten-year sentence,19 demotion and a dishonorable discharge (Cirillo &
Ricchiardi, 2004) should be the figurehead of the scandal; however, the intensity of media coverage of Private First Class soldier (Pfc.) Lynndie England suggests that she is the deserving recipient of public shaming and judgment. England received only three years in prison and a dishonorable discharge (Cirillo & Ricchiardi, 2004). Although she was assigned to administrative duties that required minimal interaction with detainees and received a lesser sentence than Graner, she is the person most commonly associated with
Abu Ghraib.20
Because the U.S. soldiers that were prosecuted for Abu Ghraib crimes were detained and not allowed to speak to the media (Gourevitch, 2009) they were not able to dispute the ways in which they were negatively characterized in the media. Their detainment facilitated moral panic rhetoric by allowing the media to conduct a form of
“queer hunting”21 which proscribed a natural or normal sexuality by emphasizing perverse sexuality represented in the photographs. For example, the media described England as
"dominatrix" and she was demonized through her association with sadomasochism (and arguably, through the implicit position of sexual power that characterizes the "dominatrix" in media representations and language22).
In classic Liberal spirit, Americans want to know to whom the blame belongs and
19 Cpl. Graner received a 10 year sentence and immunity from further prosecution in exchange for information relevant to the investigation (Introduction, 2006). 20 Further analysis of gender and sexuality is forthcoming in the section titled “Sexual Politics of Neoliberalism and Abu Ghraib.” 21 Warner describes McCarthy-style investigations as a form of “queer hunting” (1999, p. 19) 12 how justice will be sought. But blame for what, and justice for whom? While some commentary position the Iraqi detainees as the victims of Abu Ghraib, others defend the interrogation procedures as necessary wartime tactics (Enloe, 2007) and assert that the lower-ranking soldiers (i.e. Graner, England) were used as scapegoats to take the blame and obscure the responsibility of their commanding officers and Washington-based policy makers23 (Gourevitch, 2009). An investigative report conducted by Major General Antonio
M. Taguba supports the notion that the soldiers were following orders to “’soften up’ detainees for interrogation,” and that the soldiers were “undertrained… and subject to too little oversight” (Sarracino & Scott, 2008, p. 140). Additionally, “The Gray Zone,” an article published in The New Yorker in 2004, describes a Pentagon-based secret operation, code-named Copper Green, that “encouraged physical coercion and sexual humiliation of
Iraqi prisoners in an effort to generate more intelligence about the growing insurgency in
Iraq” and functioned under the direction of then Secretary of State Donald Rumsfeld
(Hersh, 2004). As a result of Abu Ghraib investigations, which included over 12 hours of sworn testimony in front of the U.S. Congress and four individual investigations conducted by the CIA, Navy, Army and the Department of Defense, there were 150 allegations of torture, but only 7 prosecutions (Eisenman, 2007).
Both “The Gray Zone” article and Taguba’s investigative report implicate the
United State military officers and powerful government personnel in the scandal; however, they continue to go unpunished and their roles largely unrecognized by the American public. How could the explicit indictment of military and government personnel remain
22 For a discussion of language and media representation of sadomasochism, see: Fowles, 2008; Califia, 1980. 23 None of the high-ranking military personnel nor the decision-making civilian contractors were ever prosecuted for the events at Abu Ghraib (Introduction, 2006; Sontag, 2004; Follman & Clark-Flory, 2006). 13 absent from the popular discussion? One reason for this is that the facts presented in
Taguba’s report including Copper Green and the role of high ranking military and government personnel is largely absent or minimized in corporate media coverage of Abu
Ghraib, which I argue is evidence of the corporate media as an instrument for neoliberal governance. In the next section, I discuss neoliberalism in relation to security state politics and the corporate media.
Neoliberalism: Social Governance and the American Dream
Although current scholarship lacks consensus on how to define neoliberalism, the term is loosely described as a set of political beliefs characterized by support for privatization, de-regulation and corporate interests (Duggan, 2002, 2003; Thorsen & Lie, n.d.; McChesney, 2001; Richardson, 2005; Harder, 2008). The prefix “neo-” connotes a reading of neoliberalism as a “new” form of liberalism; however, Thorsen and Lie advocate for a less literal translation in favor of a definition constructed around the differences between neoliberalism and liberalist philosophies (n.d.). Whereas classical24 liberalism values the ideals of individual freedom and democracy and advocates for a minimal, neutral government (Duggan, 2002; Tong, 2009), neoliberalism is a form of economic liberalism “marked by radical commitment to laissez-faire economic policies” (Thorsen &
Lie, n.d., p 11). The differences between neoliberal and liberal philosophies are echoed by
Alison Jaggar’s assertion that “neoliberalism in fact marks a retreat from the liberal social democracy of the years following World War II back toward the non-redistributive laissez- faire liberalism of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries" (2001, p. 299). Defining
14 neoliberal policies as only economic in nature is often employed to obscure the way it functions culturally and socially. While neoliberalism often refers to “free market” economic and pro-deregulation trade policies, the production of “social policies concerned with personal, sexual and domestic life,”25 are marked by neoliberal governance efforts as well (Richardson, 2005, p. 516).
Within a historical context, Lisa Duggan identifies changes in national social and economic priorities that illustrate the breadth of neoliberal governance. According to
Duggan, the “construction of neoliberal hegemony” can be documented by five distinct phases “in response to global changes that challenged the dominance of Western institutions” (Duggan, 2003, p xii). The first two phases, which take place between the
1950’s and the 1970’s, are characterized by the mobilization of political attacks on policies of social movements26 that facilitated a “downward distribution of wealth” and progressive social policies. The anti-statist pro big-business politics of the Reagan administration in the
1970’s mark the third phase and result in a shift in the distribution of wealth and resources in favor of corporate interests (rather than a distribution to promote social welfare). The
1980’s and the 1990’s are noted as the era of domestic “culture wars,” which Duggan explains as a time characterized by aggressive campaigns that attacked “public institutions and spaces for democratic public life” (2003, p. xii). The turn of the century marks the beginning of the last phase illustrated by the production of a “‘multicultural,’ neoliberal
‘equality’ politics,” which she defines as a “nonredistributive form of equality designed for
24 Although there are several schools of liberalist thought, classical liberalism is the form which is generally considered the predecessor of neoliberalism. 25 Richardson explains that the “social policies concerned with personal, sexual and domestic life” are specifically inclusive of “welfare reform, education and recognition of domestic partnerships” (Richardson, 2005, p 516). 15 global consumption…[and] continued upward redistribution of resources” (2003, xii).
Duggan identifies neoliberalism as “the brand name for the form of procorporate,
‘free market,’ anti-‘big government’ rhetoric shaping US policy” (2002, p. 176) and asserts that neoliberalism functions to secure corporate profits and big business growth at the expense of democracy, freedom and equal rights (2003). Throughout the scholarship, privatization (Duggan, 2003; Thorsen & Lie, n.d.), personal responsibility (Duggan, 2003), and market de-regulation27 (McChesney, 2001) are identified as the primary values and strategies of a cultural form of neoliberal politics. Also, Duggan identifies the sexual politics of neoliberalism (2002, 2003).
In an effort to apply a cultural form of neoliberalism with respect to the varied perspectives on the fundamental values, primary functions and governance strategies, this project embraces Duggan’s assertion that neoliberalism has a sexual politics28 and a visual politics. Beginning with a discussion of the concepts “privatization” and “personal responsibility” as discussed by Duggan, I argue for a re-conceptualization of the terms that incorporate the value of clear, distinct public / private spheres and the devaluation of sexual autonomy within the framework. I aim to demonstrate that the value of public / private division of neoliberalism is directly challenged by the public-ness of sex scandals, which illuminates the tension in conceptualizing Abu Ghraib as sex scandal. The centrality of privatization in neoliberal politics is especially significant in relation to sex scandals.
Fundamentally, the public/ private divide marks a distinction that organizes social life
26 For more about the history of neoliberalism as it pertain to social movements, see Thorsen & Lie, n.d. 27 McChesney illustrates neoliberal ideology’s attempts to veil the commitment to pro-corporate interests and market de-regulation with an example of a stance against cultural trade barriers and regulations as harmful to consumers and free markets (2001, p 2). 16 and secures structural privileges based on class, gender, race, and sexuality (Apostolidis and Williams, 2004; Warner, 1999). However, sex scandals make sex public by definition, and thus transgress the notion of separate public and private realms.
Duggan defines privatization as “the transfer of wealth and decision making from public, more or less accountable decision-making bodies to individual, or corporate, unaccountable hands” (2002, p. 177). I argue that a definition of neoliberal privatization should recognize not only the process of obscuring accountability, but also the invested interest in maintaining a distinct division of public and private space. Further elaboration of the maintenance of the public/private boundary as a requirement for successful neoliberal governance, especially with regard to the production of a public discourse of sexuality, is discussed in greater detail later in this project. Additionally, Duggan explains that neoliberal governance relies on rhetoric of personal responsibility. For clarity, I conceptualize personal responsibility as a form of economic self-sufficiency opposed to autonomous agency. By elevating individualism and independence, the personal responsibility ideal functions to construct a cultural devaluation of social policies and programs designed to address citizen dependency on corporate benefits and state funding.
In support of Duggan’s description of a neoliberal politics that values both personal responsibility and privatization, I argue that “personal responsibility” and “privatization” are more clear when conceptualized as economic self-sufficiency and a division between public / private realms, respectively. This descriptive definition is useful in a discussion of the various forms and functions of neoliberal governance; however, I argue that an analysis
28 See Duggan (2002) for more on the sexual politics of neoliberalism, especially pp. 176. 17 of neoliberal power (not only governance techniques) requires further discussion. In the next section, I apply Foucault’s “juridical power” concept to illustrate the relationship between neoliberalism and security state politics.
According to Duggan, neoliberal dominance is secured through alliances with institutions and organizations through which the neoliberal agenda can be actualized
(2003). I argue that neoliberalism is in alliance with national security state politics, which facilitates a culture of fear that legitimates the state’s authority and secures neoliberal power. First, I will elaborate on “security state politics” as it is conceptualized by Iris
Marion Young and in relation to neoliberal sexual politics discussed by Lois Harder. Then,
I discuss the alliance between the security state and neoliberalism, secured by the control of language production. Next, I explain that corporate media as a primary instrument for communication and language production and that it functions in support of the alliance to regulate the production of sexuality discourse. Ultimately, I aim to illustrate a relationship between the neoliberal, militarized security state and the corporate media control of language, which creates a culture of fear that undermines the fundamental elements of a free and democratic society.
The “state” is conceptualized as a unified power structure comprised of a set of social institutions (Kim-Puri, 2005). Kim-Puri explains that “states are… ‘powerful sites’ of symbolic and cultural production rather than simply bureaucratic apparatuses” (2005, p.
146). In The Logic of Masculinist Protection,29 Young argues that a security state secures authority by offering protection and security to the citizens in exchange for political,
18 economic and social submission to the state (2003). Through gendered “patriarchal logic,” she explains that the security state is positioned as masculine protector (of feminized women and children) and elevated “to a position of superior authority,” thus subjugating citizens “to a position of grateful dependency” (Young, 2003, p. 13). Lauren Berlant echos this idea in her discussion of the “infantile citizen,” which she explains is the result of mainstream discourses that “reimagine the nation as populated by citizens who are identifed … through their 'infantile' relationship to the nation;” Berlant defines infantile citizen as a construction that "[figures] the citizen as a being in grave peril and endangered by threats circulating within the private realm… [especially] threats concerning childbearing and sexuality" (Apostolidis and Williams, 2004, p 17).
The subjugation of or infantilizing of citizens to state relies on a culture of fear and popularized notions of gender in a good/bad dichotomy, where the “good” man protects the
“good” woman against “bad” men and the “bad” woman “is one who refuses such protection by claiming the right to run her own life;” thus, the “bargain implicit in the masculinity protector role [is] either submit to my governance or all the bad men out there are liable to approach you, and I will not try to stop them” (Young, 2003, p. 14). As opposed to a domination30 model of masculinity, the state wields “pastoral power,” which
“appears gentle and benevolent” but it is no less powerful than an authoritative31 or dominating style of governance (Young, 2003, p. 6).
29 In The Logic of Masculinist Protection, Young documents “security events and legal changes,” including the September 11th attacks and the USA Patriot Act in 2001, to illustrate the logic of masculinist protection in the United States (Young, 2003, p 2). 30 Young explains that the domination model of masculinity is characterized by men who “wish to master women sexually for the sake of their own gratification and to have the pleasures of domination" (Young, 2003, p. 4). 19 The gendered analysis of security state politics illustrates the sexual politics of neoliberalism in alliance with the state. State governance is modeled after traditional, naturalized gender roles within the heteronormative family, where the male head of household is responsible for protecting the family and the women and children maintain the structure through willful obedience and fulfilling menial household labor. In “State
Fantasies and Intimate Relationships,” Harder argues that neoliberalism encourages and supports the heterosexual nuclear family structure, which is evidenced by constitutional attempts to define marriage and national laws such as the Defense of Marriage Act that identifies marriage as a union between a man and a woman exclusively and outlaws same- sex marriage (2008). Also, the preference for the nuclear family is expressed through policies such as the family wage and complicated divorce laws (Harder, 2008).
Neoliberal support for the institution of marriage can be explained in part by the state’s investment in citizens’ economic self-sufficiency. Because married citizens can depend on multiple incomes to support the family, they are less likely to rely on the state for financial aid. Thus, marriage produces a “robust middle class,” that “does not rely on the state to satisfy its needs” (Harder, 2008, p. 12). For example, Temporary Assistance for
Needy Families (TANF) “identifies marriage and family as central to the objective of poverty reduction" (Harder, 2008, p. 11). With regard to same-sex marriage, Harder explains that neoliberal arguments are used to oppose it on the basis that “the extension of marriage rights would cause a drain on public… and increase business costs for private employers;” however, this neoliberal logic rarely surfaces in public discussion because it
31 Young states that "authoritarian government is grounded in fear of threat and the apparent desire for protection that fear generates" (Young, 2003, p. 2). 20 typically gets lost in moralist and evangelical anti-gay rhetoric (2008, p. 14). In addition, I argue that neoliberal politics are opposed to same-sex marriage due to the return on neoliberalism’s investment in the security state, whose authority relies on traditional gender roles to justify the state’s role as patriarchal protector.
The relationship between neoliberalism and security state politics is best illustrated as a form of juridical power. By definition, a juridical power works to “regulate political life in purely negative terms” such as ”the limitation, prohibition, regulation, control and even the ‘protection’ of individuals related to that political structure through the contingent and retractable operation of choice” (Butler, 2006, p. 3). In Gender Trouble, Butler identifies language as a juridical structure that is central to constructing power32 (2006). In her analysis, subjectivity is central to the idea that language creates “the socially real”33 because language produces fields of representation34 within which subjects acquire visibility and political identity (2006, p. 156). However, subjectivity within juridical power is limited by regulations so that “subjects…are formed, defined and reproduced in accordance with the requirements” of the political system; thus, juridical power “‘produces’ what it claims merely to represent” through “exclusionary practices that do not ‘show’ once the juridical structure of politics has been established” (Butler, 2006, p. 3). In other words,
Butler argues that language creates the reality through which identities are named, defined, regulated, limited and policed; thus, hegemony is created “through the repression and exclusion of subjects” (Kim-Puri, 2005, p. 151). The neoliberal security state as juridical power functions to regulate and produce reality and identities through the control of
32 For example, she argues that language creates social institutions through repetition (Butler, 2006). 33 For more on the ways in which language constructs reality, see: Wittig, 1992; Califia, 1980; Butler, 2006. 21 language. For example, Abu Ghraib media coverage heavily emphasized personal responsibility of the soldiers, often referring to them as “bad apples.”35 Effectively, the focus on personal responsibility and individual agency shifts public attention away from issues of institutional accountability and obscures systemic subjectivity.
Language in the neoliberal security state serves not only to build reality through subjectivity but also to limit agency and obscure power structures. Butler explains that the operation of power must be “nonfigurable,”36 in order to function (2007). Thus, the juridical power of the neoliberal security state relies on power of language to produce a field of representability, which obscures the ways in which the juridical power alliance functions. For example, Duggan explains that neoliberal dominance is greatly dependent on the rhetorical separation of economic and cultural realms of public life (2003). Defining economic policy as “neutral” and requiring a “technical expertise,” separate from culture, which is not “subject to… accountability or cultural critique”,37 the rhetorical separation functions as a form of strategic depoliticization to obscure the role and functions of neoliberal politics. In this way, neoliberalism appropriates language of classical liberalism
(freedom, democracy, free-market, minimal government) in an effort to appear “as a kind of non-politics: a way of being reasonable and of promoting universally desirable forms of economic expansion and democratic government” (Duggan, 2002, p. 176). For example,
34 Butler explains that the “field of perceptible reality” constructed by language “is one in which the notion of the recognizable human is formed and maintained” (Butler, 2007, p. 1). 35 Sontag discusses the “bad apples” characterization as a “barrel of bad apples” and discusses the language in relation to institutional power structures (2004). 36 Butler differentiates between “nonfigurable” and invisible: “That it is nonfigurable does not mean it cannot be shown. But what is shown when it comes into view is the staging apparatus itself, the maps that exclude certain regions, the directives of the army, the positioning of the cameras, the communication of the punishments that lay in wait if protocol is breached." (Butler 2007, p. 3) 22 Nina Power argues that the rhetorical separation of sex from one’s daily body experience in public discourse facilitates a social and political devaluing of sexual experience:
“women treat their breasts as 'wholly separate entities'... they are 'assets' in the physical and economic sense simultaneously" (2009, p. 25).
Pertaining to language production, Butler asserts that the “state operates…in the field of representability,” which she differentiates from “representation” in that representability “is structured by state permission” and that the state functions to control affect “in anticipation of the way affect informs and galvanizes political opposition38”
(Butler, 2007, p. 3). For example, most media referenced the Abu Ghraib inmates as either
“prisoners” or “detainees,” which reveals the political nature of language and word choice
(Sontag, 2004) and the power of framing (Butler, 2007). On the one hand, “prisoners” clearly connotes guilty subjects who belong in a punitive facility, whereas “detainees” is slightly more humanizing and implies reference to subjects who deserve basic human rights. Through the manipulation of language, neoliberalism establishes the “juridical structure of politics” and occupies an obscured state of (in)visibility from which power operates.
The intimate relationship between language production and neoliberal security state dominance is illustrated by the role of the corporate media structure as the means by which discourse is governed. Gamson explains “sex scandal stories are selected and conveyed by media professionals” and that the “specific way reporting is organized, the structure of social relations between media workers and those in other institutional worlds (religious,
37 For example, “class warfare” rhetoric about material inequality, race, gender sex inequality are “cultural, private or trivial” (Duggan, 2003, p xiv). 23 political, entertainment, etc.) affects the storytelling” (2004, p. 41). Young explains that corporate media occupies a primary role in the production and reinforcement of a culture of fear: "Public leaders invoke fear… and our fears are stirred by what we see on television or read in the newspaper; [thus,] we are grateful to the leaders and officers who say that they will shoulder the risk in order to protect us" (2003, p. 12). According to Young, the security state’s role as protector relies on the “mobilization of fear” to justify the need for state protection (2003). Employing the us/them dichotomy, the security state logic creates a culture of fear that serves as the foundation of the bargain that guarantees citizen’s protection in exchange for their submission (2003). Veiled by rhetoric of fear, the security state politics obscure neoliberalism, allowing the juridical power alliance to function without accountability or oversight. Ultimately, the neoliberal security state protection materializes as restricted freedoms and limited privacies and produces a subservient citizenry in a culture of perpetual fear.
In this chapter, I have discussed the discourses of sexuality that result from Abu
Ghraib as a sex scandal. I explained the socio-historical context that influences the public culture of sex today that limits representation and visibility of sexualities. Then, I demonstrated the alliance between neoliberalism’s sexual politics and security state governance, which, I argue, is supported by corporate media communication. Ultimately, the discourse resulting from Abu Ghraib is shaped by neoliberal security state politics through the limitations of language and representation in corporate media coverage.
However, the public-ness that is characteristic of sex scandals is fundamentally subversive and transgresses the public/private division of organized society. Thus, the discourse is not
38 In the original text, Butler is referencing political opposition to war (2003). 24 always already controlled and limited, which suggests that there is potential for a subversive discourse of sexuality resulting from Abu Ghraib. In the next section, I will discuss the relationship between the culture of fear (created by militarized security state politics) and the construction of taboo in popular discourse. Additionally I will demonstrate the ways in which the subsequent climate governs and produces a discourse of desire.
A History of Moralism, Censorship and Neoliberalism
Locating the discussion of sexuality discourse in a historical context helps to make linkages between cultural change, social organization and political activity that can reveal patterns of sexual regulation and the ways in which power has been obscured through the repetition of language (Butler, 2006; Duggan, 1990). In this section, I review the histories of sexual politics that have shaped contemporary sexuality discourse and demonstrate that the short history of sexuality studies shows an interesting parallel to neoliberal progression39.
In the late 19th century, Victorian codes of morality condemned prostitution and masturbation as obscene, abnormal or unnatural (Rubin, 1984). Additionally, the era is marked by organized attacks on birth control and public condemnation of music halls and public dancing; subsequently, the social climate allowed for institutional regulation of
39 In Duggan’s Twilight of Equality (2003) and “The New Homonormativity” (2002), she acknowledges that neoliberalism has a sexual politics and makes references to the relationship, but she does not explicit make the connections between the histories of sexuality discourse and neoliberalism. 25 sexuality, such as the Comstock laws40 (Rubin, 1984). In Thinking Sex, Gayle Rubin explains how Victorian morality continued to affect the construction of appropriate sexuality in the public imagination and the role of public policy in enforcement of social norms in the 20th century (1984). For example, strict moral codes proscribing non- normative sex in the post-war political climate in the 1940s and 1950s sanctioned “federal witch hunts” of “erotic communities whose activities did not fit the postwar American dream” (Rubin, 1984, p 270).
Changes in legal definitions and boundaries of spheres of privacy in gender and race politics during the 1960’s were expanded to include (hetero)sexuality41 by the 1970’s
(Apostolidis and Williams, 2004). Feminist researchers began questioning the male dominated positions of power in medicine, government and media and “linked sexuality to issues of power and social conflict in American history” (Duggan, 1990, p. 97). During the
1980’s, there was “intensified politicization of sexual issues” due to the rise of conservative and moralist agendas that focused on “teenage pregnancy, abortion, the sexual abuse of children, pornography, gay rights and AIDS” (Duggan, 1990, p. 101). Duggan explains that
“the discussion of these issues has frequently fed on irrational fears, evoked cultural symbols of danger and pollution, and led to social policies based on hysteria," and facilitated moral panics (1990, p. 101). The ways in which social issues were rhetorically tied to economic and social structures implied that privatization would benefit the public in
40 The Comstock Act of 1873 was the first federal anti-obscenity law in the United States. Comstock laws banned the production and exchange of obscene materials and banned dissemination of information about contraception, abortion (Rubin, 1984). 41 Duggan explains that researchers used statistics from demographic data to identify behavioral patterns in “courtships, marriages and divorces, and rates of fertility, illegitimacy and premarital pregnancy,” and tie the patterns to economic and social structures in society (1990, p. 97). These issues pertained primarily to heterosexual behaviors. 26 ways that the government was failing.
In the mid 20th century, public discourse of sexuality was influenced by feminist analyses of sex and power which posited male sexual violence against women as a central tool of patriarchal oppression (Dines & Jensen, 2009). During the “sex-wars”42 of the
1970’s and 1980’s, the sex-is-dangerous trope materialized in public debates about pornography as violent sexual imagery (always) and that it was directly responsible for the normalization and perpetuation of violence against women (Siegal, 2007; Dines & Jensen,
2009). For example, Catherine Mackinnon, one of the most well-known feminist anti- pornography crusaders, developed a theory of dominance in which she asserts that major institutions, like law and the media, are run by men for the purpose of sustaining male dominance and social power (Levit & Verchick, 2006).
In an attempt to conceptualize an alternative social and political climate of sexuality, a sex positive, pro-sex/pro-sexuality perspective formed opposite anti- pornography groups and became known as the anti-censorship camp of radical feminist thought.43 Well known sex-positive scholar Carol Queen defines sex-positivity44 as “the cultural philosophy that understands sexuality as a potentially positive force in one’s life,” and explains that “sex positivity allows for and in fact celebrates sexual diversity, differing desires and relationships structures, and individual choices based on consent” (Queen &
42 For more information on the feminist “sex wars,” see Duggan & Hunter, 2006; Rubin, 1984. Also for details about the debates, see Kate Ellis et al., eds. Caught Looking: Feminism, Pornography and Censorship, New York, 1986. 43 The counter argument in the debate is situated in the notion that pornography is exploitative and conflates sex with violence, both of which undermine the fight for women’s equality. 44 Carol Queen makes a distinction between sex positivity and feminist sex positivity, whereas most scholarship uses the two ideas interchangeably. Queen asserts that sex-positive feminism is slightly different because there is a conscious effort to engage in dialogue about sex-positivism with other feminist-identified women (Queen & Camella, 2008). In this essay, I do not make a distinction between sex-positivism and feminist sex-positivism. 27 Comella, 2008, p. 278). Linda Williams, another influential contributor, explains sex- positivists as people who are “interested in defending the expression of sexual differences and in opposing the hierarchization of sexualities” (Williams, 1999, p. 23).
However, sex-positivity has had a limited effect on popular discourse. The sex-as- danger and sex-as-public-shame45 tropes that monopolize public discussions are oppositional to notions of sexual autonomy and freedom of expression that are central to sex-positivism. Also, attempts to conceptualize an alternative social and political climate of sexuality are impeded by the lack of clear and value-free language to discuss sex. For example, the conflation of sex with danger and shame produces a language of sexuality that is constantly in danger of prescribing the “right” and “wrong” ways to be sexual. In
Pleasure and Danger, Carole S. Vance warns against “prescriptivism,” which is “the tendency to transform broad, general principles like equality, autonomy, and self- determination into fairly specific and rigid standards to which all feminists are expected to conform,” and cautions that discussions about sex must be mindful of the difference between expressing personal preferences and setting norms (1984, p. 21). Also, applying sex-positivity in the judicial system is hindered by the ambiguous limitations of the term
“sexual freedom.” To put it another way, what are the boundaries of consent46 within sexual freedom? (Snitow, et. al, 1983). Because regulation ultimately functions to prescribe sexual norms, sex-positivism advocates for less regulation of sexuality. However, sex positivist ideology does not demarcate boundaries of sexual freedom, which implies that all forms of sexual expression, such as bestiality, necrophilic behavior, and child pornography,
45 For a nuanced articulation the relationship between sex and shame, see “The Ethics of Shame” in Warner (1999), pp. 1-40. 28 should be deregulated. This logic begs further questions: Why are some sexual mores condemned while others are encouraged? “If the pursuit of pleasure is permissible, how can principled limits be placed on pleasure seekers?” (Pa, 2001, p. 5). Ultimately, the goal of pro-sexuality is sexual autonomy and bodily integrity (Warner, 1999; Cornell, 1995), although it is not clear how people will experience sexual autonomy and in what form
(Warner, 1999).
Duggan explains that historically, moral panics have “centered on the fears of the political right (broadly construed) and have aimed at controlling the perceived threat of sexually unconventional and the politically dangerous;" however, she notes that the presumably left feminist politics have also facilitated sex panics47, such as the pornography debates of the 1980's48 (Duggan, 1990, p. 102). Arguably, the legacy of sex panics from
Victorian moral codes in the early to mid 20th century and the anti-pornography, pro-state regulation campaigns of the latter quarter century, are evidenced in contemporary public policy and popular discourse. In America’s War on Sex, Marty S. Klein argues that the modern social and political climate of sex is primarily characterized by rhetoric of morality and ethics and supports the rhetorical conflation of sex with shame (2008). Klein traces the evidence of state intervention thorough a discussion of the government’s role in shaping current policies regarding education, reproductive rights, adult entertainment, the Internet, pornography, and privacy (2008). Similarly, Warner observes the prevalence of sexual shaming in public discourse and remarks that it is primarily pontificated by “moralists,” a
46 Articulating “consent” for practical application is a highly contentious topic that deserves a nuanced analysis. For context, see: Pa, 2001; Califia, 1980; Linden, 1981; Troost, 2008; Fowles, 2008. 47 In "Seeking Ecstasy on the Battlefield: Danger and Pleasure in Nineteenth Century Feminist Sexual Thought," Ellen DuBois and Linda Gordon examine the prevalence of social purity rhetoric in feminist-led anti-prostitution campaigns in the early 20th century (1984). 48 For discussion of the “sex wars” and pornography debate, see: Duggan and Hunter, 2006; Ellis et al., 1986) 29 term he uses to reference a person whose social identity is grounded in the belief that one’s
“personal sexual tastes or preferences (or rather an idealized version of them) [should] be mandated for everyone” (1999, p 4). According to Warner, moralist politics seek to govern not only sexual behavior but also a public knowledge of sex (1999). Further, he argues that moralism results in a form of “heterosexual world domination” that produces “silent inequalities,” “unintended effects of isolation,” and a “lack of public access (Warner, 1999, p 7). The history of sexuality discourse is populated by controversial debates, state intervention and divisive politics, which influence the production of normative and non- normative sexuality in a neoliberal context today.
30 Chapter 2
The Visual Language of Abu Ghraib
The Abu Ghraib photographs are central to an analysis of the sexual politics. Despite the fact that news1 stories surfaced as early as November 2003, Abu Ghraib did not become a national sex scandal until the photographs were published by CBS’ 60 Minutes II and The
New Yorker in April, 2004. In this chapter, I assert that the interpretations of the photographs (as language-power) are socially mediated and that the materialization of the interpretations shape the discourse to maintain the non-figurablility of neoliberal security state power. My analysis of the visual politics of Abu Ghraib, assumes that photographs are a form of language2 and that language constructs reality. I argue that the sexual politics of neoliberalism are articulated visually and that the discourse resulting from the translations of the photographs functions to create a heteronormative public culture of sex. Then, I present an alternative examination of the photographs and resulting discourse through
Linda Williams’ discussion of the relationship between fear, taboo and desire. Using this framework, I interrogate the erotic within Abu Ghraib discourse and the ways in which sexuality is governed by neoliberal security state politics.
1 According to Cirrillo and Ricchiardi, The Associated Press reported “alleged abuse at three Iraqi POW camps, including Abu Ghraib, based on interviews with former POWs” on November 1, 2003 (2004). Then, The U.S. Command in Baghdad issued a press release about the Abu Ghraib investigation shortly after Army Spc. Joseph M. Darby reported the abuse to military investigators in January 2004; Cirrillo and Ricchiardi note that “a Lexis-Nexis search shows that most media outlets either ignored the announcement or ran brief stories” (2004). Approximately a week later on January 21, 2004, CNN reported “that U.S. male and female soldiers reportedly posed for photos with partially unclothed Iraqi prisoners and that the focus of the Army's investigation is Abu Ghraib” (2004). About a month later, Jen Banbury of Salon magazine published details of the Abu Ghraib prison abuse allegations including sexual humiliation, beatings and sleep deprivation (2004). However, it wasn’t until April 28, 2004, almost two months after the initial reports surfaced, that CBS published the photographs from Abu Ghraib that sparked the media frenzy and public outrage. 2 For more on photographs and cinema as language, see Williams, 1989; Bazin & Gray, 1960. 31 Like language, the discourse of the photographs governs the field of representability, which limits the range of translations. In other words, discussion of the
Abu Ghraib photographs in both the media coverage and the academic commentary imposes interpretations that effectively frame the discussion of Abu Ghraib (Butler, 2007).
Although it is clear that photographs are central to the discussion, it is unclear how they function and with what effect. In line with my assumption that photographs are a form of language, there is consensus that photographs communicate either representation of reality
(as spectacle) or information about reality (as evidence of truths).
With moralist rhetoric and proscriptive tone, most of the mass media coverage and some of the scholarly commentary3 identified Abu Ghraib photographs as pornographic and/or reminiscent of sadomasochism (Weiss, 2009; Puar, 2004; Sarracino & Scott, 2008;
Sontag, 2004). For example, public figures and mass media publications commonly represented the moralist political stance. The New York Daily News published a story that was almost entirely about the consensual sex practices within BDSM communities, although it was misleadingly titled, “Sexual Side of G.I. Abuse” (Weiss, 2009, p. 181).
The story essentially blurs the distinction between consensual BDSM and the non- consensual events at Abu Ghraib by asserting that “some of the acts shown in the now infamous prison videos are activities that real women and men engage in voluntarily, and for pleasure,” (Weiss, 2009, p 181). This is problematic not only because it is moralist, proscriptive and misleading but also because it constructs a knowledge of BDSM sex that is inaccurate, misrepresentative and that reinforces a public culture of sex that regards
3 See Porning of America, especially chapter 6 (Sarracino and Scott, 2008). Also, in “Rumsfeld!: Consensual BDSM and ‘sadomasochistic’ torture at Abu Ghraib,” Weiss compares Abu Ghraib to a BDSM relationship 32 sadomasochism as bad, abnormal and perverse sex. Feminist scholars have documented the trend of misrepresentation of BDSM in the media4 and explain that it restricts sexual agency and freedom of sexual expression in public discourse. For example, Stacey May
Fowles identifies mass media as a culprit in the public misinformation about BDSM and explains that it perpetuates negative stereotypes about female sexuality: “constant, unrestrained availability [of imagery associated with BDSM] trains viewers who don’t have a cultural awareness…to believe that what women want is to be coerced” (2008, p 121).
Media coverage that misrepresents BDSM contributes to a misinformed public and reinforces the conditions by which non-heteronormative sexualities remain marginalized.
Although some of the academic and critical commentary also conflates Abu Ghraib with sadomasochism and/or pornography, most do so through an analytic (although typically moralist) discussion of the effects of pornography on American culture5 or to show that there are greater differences between BDSM and Abu Ghraib than there are similarities6. On the other hand, some scholars condemn the association with pornography and criticize corporate media for the ways in which Abu Ghraib was spectacularized
(Weiss, 2009), pathologized (Weiss, 2009) and exceptionalized (Puar, 2004, 2005; Sontag,
2004; Enloe, 2007; Eisenman, 2007) through a discourse of deviant sexuality. For example,
Margot Weiss explains that the media coverage both spectacularizes and pathologizes Abu
Ghraib as a whole, rendering the discussion apolitical and ahistorical: “Abu Ghraib
(2009). Although she concludes there are greater differences than similarities between the two, she discusses the similarities in detail (2009). 4 Margot Weiss documents the misrepresentation of BDSM in print media dating from the 1980s to the present. See: Weiss, M. D. (2006). Mainstreaming kink: The politics of BDSM representation in U.S. popular media in Sadomasochism: Powerful pleasures, eds. Peggy J. Kleinplatz and Charles Moser, pp 103-132. Binghampton, NY: Harrington Park Press. 5 For example, see Sontag, 2004. 33 photographs close off a social or political response to torture by instead adhering attention to a surface spectacle of individual pathology” (2009, p 181). In “Queer Times, Queer
Assemblages,” Jasbir K. Puar asserts that the emphasis on homosexuality within the discursive contributions from both conservative and progressive groups “obscures other forms of gendered violence and serves a broader racist and sexist as well as homophobic agenda” (2005, p. 523). A public acknowledgment of Abu Ghraib as violence and torture would undermine America’s “moral authority” (Sontag, 2004) and destabilize the America- as-good-guy protector role that is fundamental to security state politics; thus, the corporate media as a tool of neoliberalism is invested in directing the discourse away from issues of power and accountability.
Many of the scholars that condemn the corporate media for depoliticizing Abu
Ghraib assert an alternative conceptualization of the photographs as production of evidence or truths. As language, photographs function to create the “socially real,” and produce subjectivity by making political and social identities visible. For example, Weiss argues that the Abu Ghraib photographs presented the “the real” of torture as sexual fantasy (2009, p. 181). Also, Puar suggests that the photos reveal evidence of power and "an irrefutable intentionality" of violence, as opposed to the "unavoidable deaths of war" (Puar, 2004, p.
531). The idea that photographs communicate truths is grounded in both the Foucauldian notion that truth and knowledge are socially constructed (Foucault, 1978) and that photographs re-present rather than simply represent7 (Williams, 1989). As a construct,
6 For example, see Weiss, 2009. 7 Andre Bazin’s ontology of the photographic image “states that photography and cinema are not icons that resemble or represent the world; rather, through indexical registrations of objects from the world onto photographic emulsions, they re-present, and hence are, this world” (Williams, 1989, p. 37). 34 knowledge is a political tool in that the power to name it becomes the power to control it.8
Thus corporate media by nature of its position and role in society, exercises power through framing and naming the knowledge with which the discourse is produced.
Similar to verbal communication, the visual communication of photographs is subject to the politics of framing and interpretation. Butler explains that the photographer interprets the frame, and thus the "political background is being explicitly formulated and renewed in the frame" (2007, p. 2). Both the media coverage and the scholarly commentary impose interpretations of Abu Ghraib that limit the frame of the discussion and control the effects of the language. For example, both Butler and Sontag observed that the photographs in the mass media were cropped and edited for public viewing which functioned to frame the discussion by omitting part of the visual field. By expressing displeasure at the disrespect for the boundaries, the discourse communicates respect for and reproduces
“those same boundaries, renewing and strengthening efforts to contain, channel and sublimate the private conduct at issue," which ultimately “reproduces hegemonic construction of the public/private distinction” (Apostolidis and Williams, 2004, p. 10).
Furthermore, "in doing so they reinforce the legitimacy and perceived naturalness of making this distinction at all" (Apostolidis and Williams, 2004, p. 10). As “natural” the public/private divide becomes nonfigurable and apolitical, a process of naming and knowledge production that upholds neoliberal values and power.
Although most contemporary film and media scholars agree that photography primarily functions as a form of communication (Weiss, 2009; Williams, 1989; Sontag,
8 Butler explains that naming is an act of domination (2006). 35 2004), the purpose of photographs has changed over time. Whereas photos used to function primarily as documentation to preserve memories, now they are "less objects to be saved than messages to be disseminated, circulated," which is essentially a shift "from trophy to propaganda" (Puar, 2004, p. 532). For example, Sarracino and Scott document the use of pornography in wartime dating back to the civil war (2008), and Despina Kakoudaki examines the shift toward pin-up pornography as propaganda during WWII (2004). At Abu
Ghraib, the soldiers allegedly used the photographs to intimidate the detainees by posting them in plain sight on the military prison’s computer. In this way, the photographs were being used to communicate political and sexual fear to control the detainees through threats of violence. In reference to Abu Ghraib as pornographic propaganda, Justin Raimondo explains that “the will to domination permeates the propaganda of the flesh,” and that
“cruelty and role-playing, creating and reinforcing stereotypes of dominance and submission” are fundamental to pornography as propaganda, which he terms “pornoganda”
(2004).
I highlight the discussion of porn as propaganda for the same reason that some feminist scholars argue for a socio-historical discussion of sexual humiliation as a common wartime policy (Weiss, 2009, Puar, 2004, 2005; Sontag, 2004): the events of Abu Ghraib are not exceptional. A historical context resists attempts to exceptionalize Abu Ghraib by refocusing the centrality of sexual and visual politics and illuminates patterns of operate power in history. Both as propaganda and wartime interrogation tactic, the neoliberal security state employs language-power of sexuality to characterize Abu Ghraib as more exceptional than normal to limit the boundaries of interpretation in popular discourse.
36 Jasbir K. Puar asserts that photographs serve both as representation and information, “as the representation of information,” (2004, p. 532). A review of the discourse of sexuality from Abu Ghraib shows that there is a lack of analysis that explores the “dual modalities”9 of Abu Ghraib as both sexual and political rather than either/or.
Duggan observes a similar trend which is endemic of the history of sexuality research:
“Oddly, as the discussion of ‘sexuality’ has exploded in intellectual circles, the specification of acts - what people actually do when they ‘have sex’ and how those acts have changed over time - has seldom been attempted” (1990, p. 109). Furthermore, she suggests that it is due in part to the presumed “naturalness” of sex and the presumption that what constitutes sex is static and ahistorical category10 (1990). In an effort to address this gap, I argue for a discussion of the erotic of Abu Ghraib that acknowledges the presence of sex and explores the materializations a sexual politics articulated visually. Specifically, I discuss an alternative translation of the Abu Ghraib photographs using Linda Williams’ work on fear, taboo and desire.
Fear, Taboo and Desire
The culture of fear is a well-documented and widely discussed phenomenon among social scientists11. I approach the topic with the assumption that the experience of fear is
9 In reference to the preceding sentence, “dual modalities” is the terminology that Jasbir K. Puar uses in “Arguing Against Exceptionalism” to characterize photographs as both representation and information (2004, p. 532). 10 Duggan also notes the exceptions to this assertion. For example, she recognizes the “chronicle” of the "invention of petting" by Ellen K. Rothman, in Hands and Hearts: A History of Courtship in America, 1984, as an effort to “make note of the historical reorganization of the practices called ‘sex’.” (Duggan, 1990, p 109). )11 See Culture of Fear by Barry Glassner (2000). 37 socially mediated, thus the control of discourse is fundamental to producing and enforcing the power of fear. To review, the authority of the security state is predicated on a bargain between state as protector and citizen as protected (Young, 2003). The foundation of this arrangement assumes that citizens are always already in a position of perpetual victimhood which is inescapable without state protection. I argue that in order to facilitate collective citizen compliance, the security state must employ language-power to construct a field of representation that is framed by rhetoric of fear and threat of violence; in other words, the security state relies on a culture of fear to legitimize the subordination of citizenry to the state. Because fear is a complex and pervasive tool of social organization, an interrogation of constructions of fear must clarify the kinds of fear are in question and whose fears are being discussed. I focus on political and sexual fear to show how neoliberal security state politics effect social organization and encourage citizens to assume a position of “grateful dependency”12 to the state. As a component of sexuality discourse, I assert that fear facilitates the production of taboos and sexual prohibitions.
Linda Williams argues that the desire to consume interracial pornography is enhanced by the societal taboo of interracial coupling and fear of the stereotyped black male hypersexual body (2004b). Using Georges Bataille’s work, she explains that fear is central to erotic tension of interracial pornography: “’unless the taboo is observed with fear, it lacks the counterpoise of desire which gives it its deepest significance,’” (2004b, p. 275).
How do taboo and fear function in Abu Ghraib discourse? What is the relationship between
12 See Young, 2003. 38 the taboos13 communicated and society’s political and sexual climate of fear? Does the combination of taboo and fear affect desire and if so, desire for what? Using the assertion that the combination of fear and taboo produce or enhance desire, I interrogate the ways in which discourses of desire and pleasure are produced and governed by neoliberal security state politics that rely on language control and a culture of fear. First, I explain the construction of sexual and political fear grounded in security state politics. Then, I look at sexual shaming language as a source of prohibition and taboo within sexuality discourse.
Collectively, I argue that fear, taboo and desire in Abu Ghraib reinforce one another as opposed to Williams’ assertion that it is a linear process. I aim to show that the socially mediated forms of fear and socially constructed taboos create a public culture of sex that facilitates neoliberal security state governance of discourses of desire.
Although I argue that political and sexual fear are mutually dependent and reinforce one another, I also assert that the material forms of each are distinctly identifiable. A contemporary example of political fear is the construction of the “war on terror,” which functions through the “with-us-or-against-us” doctrine to facilitate the “demonizing and dehumanizing of anyone declared by the Bush administration to be a possible terrorist”
(Sontag, 2004, p. 6). The rhetoric of the “war on terror” is particularly effective in a neoliberal security state because it facilitates a type of fear that “obscures reason” and
“intensifies emotions” (Brzezinski, 2007, p. 1), thus diverting discussion away from critical discussions of power and accountability. For example, the color-coded terror alert system implemented after the September 11th terrorist attacks (9/11), was widely criticized because
13 For example, Puar explains that the Abu Ghraib images show "violence that purports to mimic sexual acts closely associated with homosexuality such as sodomy and oral sex, as well as sadomasochistic practices of bondage, leashing and hooding" (2004, p. 522). 39 it facilitated public fear and provided very little information about the perceived threat; thus, the government manipulated the public by “play[ing] on people’s fear of an imagined enemy and fabricated an ‘imminent threat’” (Hassan, 2005, p. 1). Within the context of
Abu Ghraib, the war on terror rhetoric has been evoked to justify the behavior of the U.S. military personnel as necessary and unavoidable in wartime (Enloe, 2007). The blatant disregard for violations of human rights suggests that the Iraqi detainees are dehumanized by the war on terror discourse, which is further supported by evidence of racism and
Islamophobic14 discrimination15 of any person perceived as Muslim. Because the war on terror has no singular enemy, it produces fear of an “imagined enemy” who is socially identifiable only by his16 skin color. The discourse that supports the us/them (white/other) dichotomy forms identities that are divided along racial lines, which facilitates the neoliberal agenda in that it discourages social group formation.17 Furthermore, the “us” group is the patriotic (read: submissive) citizenry, which supports security state politics.
Ultimately, the war on terror produces political fear, which positions the U.S. military as a paternalistic presence in Iraq rather than a forceful menace and produces/reinforces social inequalities that govern social organization.
Similar to political fear, a culture of sexual fear is maintained by the perception of an ever-present yet explicitly unidentifiable danger. The culture of sexual fear is produced by the sex-as-danger and sex-as-public-shame tropes that dominate public discourse of
14 For discussion about Islamophobia and discrimination against perceived Muslims, see: Puar, 2004, 2005; Brzezinski, 2007; Hassan, 2005. 15 For example, Hassan cites a Cornell University survey that reported almost half of the respondents believed that “’the US should 'restrict the civil liberties of Muslim Americans'” (2005). 16 Typically, discussions of “terrorist” are coded male. With regard to the Abu Ghraib detainees, very few were female and the female detainees were rarely, if ever, discussed in the media. 40 sexuality. A bi-product of sex-as-danger rhetoric is the “rape culture,” which is a term that describes the environment that produces and condones male sexual domination and conflates sex with violence (Buchwald, 1993). Emilie Buchwald articulates the idea that rape culture exists in “a society where violence is seen as sexy and sexuality as violent”
(1993, p. ii). For example, Weiss observes a language “slippage” throughout Abu Ghraib media coverage that blurs the distinction between torture and sex (2009). Specifically, she identified oscillations from “human rights violations to hard core pornography,” “from torture to sadomasochism” and “from prisoner abuse to gay SM events” (Weiss, 2009, p.
183).
Susan Brownmiller identifies rape as an instrument of male power in that it produces a “process of intimidation by which all men keep all women in a state of fear”
(Brownmiller, 1975). In Abu Ghraib, the sexual humiliation was used as a tactic of fear and intimidation, which effectively illustrated the way that sexual fear was used as a form of social control and reinforced rape culture values. Ultimately, the culture of fear manipulates subordinated, effeminate citizens into seeking paternalistic masculinist protection, which deters organized opposition to the heteronormative patriarchal order of society,18 thus securing the dominant group’s privilege and power19 (Filipovic, 2008).
Contemporary American society experiences rape culture as an organizing force
17 See Duggan, 2003. 18 For more information on the ways that rape culture functions via the perpetuation of rape myths, ambiguous legal protection against violence or the threat of violence and the role of traditional gender roles in rape culture, see: “Theory and practice: Pornography and rape” (1980), by Robin Morgan; “Sexual politics” (1968), by K. Millett; “Intercourse” (1987), by A. Dworkin; “Preamble” (1993) by Emile Buchwald; Against Our Will: Men, Women, and Rape, (1993), by Susan Brownmiller; “Rape Myths” (2007), by J. Anderson. 19 See Butler (2006) and Foucault (1978) for political reasons that gender and sexuality are regulated. 41 that encourages traditional gender norms (i.e. the normalization of violent masculinity and female passivity), and cultivates mass public fear and female sexual repression (Filipovic,
2008). Enloe explains that the sexual humiliation as torture at Abu Ghraib is founded on feminization20, which she defines as “imposing allegedly feminine characteristics to lower his/her/its status” (Enloe, 2007, p. 95). When feminization is widely recognized as a military tactic to subjugate and humiliate detainees, it reinforces a perceived “naturalness” of women’s subordinate status in society and reinforces the gender binary that ascribes privilege and power to maleness.
Warner explains that the association between sex and shame or disgrace is a rhetorical strategy that aims to govern the sexuality of others (1999). Warner and Berlant argue that the sex-as-shame trope is produced and reinforced by moralist rhetoric and results in a “stigmaphobic” and “erotophobic” society in which “conformity is ensured through the fear of stigma” (Warner, 1999, p. 43). The media coverage of Abu Ghraib illustrated a cohesive public response demarcated by outrage and disgust, which is characteristic of erotophobic public culture of sex. She explains that erotophobia is a “fear of sex, tinged toward hatred of sex” within which public scandals “revel” and the public responds in disgust (2008), which aptly describes the ways in which the media coverage of
Abu Ghraib framed the collective “public response.” The photographs of Abu Ghraib were repeatedly referred to as “disgusting,” (Puar, 2004; Berlant, 2008; Sontag, 2004). Warner explains that erotophobia materializes in the form of silence, censorship, and repression: “it can coexist with and even feed on commercialized titillation, desperate fascination,
20 Enloe explains that “all organizations are gendered,” which she explains as “shaped by the ideas about, and daily practices of masculinities and femininities” (2007, p. 4). 42 therapeutic celebration and punitive prurience,” (p. 23) and produces conditions of isolation and silence about sexuality (1999, p. 171). I argue that Abu Ghraib media coverage facilitated a public culture of sex that encouraged erotophobia and silenced discussions of the ways in which a knowledge of sex is produced through the discourse. For example, in
Abu Ghraib media coverage, public figures commonly represented the moralist political stance. For example, Representative Barney Frank was quoted in The Los Angeles Times describing the events at Abu Ghraib as “sadomasochistic sexual degradation” and Joanna
Burke of the Guardian UK asserts that the images “are reminiscent of sadomasochistic porn” (Weiss 2009 p 181). Additionally, Representative Zoe Lofgren said, “I saw things that made me sick,” and senators Bill Frist and Joe Lieberman describe the images as
“appalling” and “disgusting,” respectively (Raimondo, 2004). The repetition of these descriptors throughout the mass media framed the entire discussion and outlined the normative response; thus, a non-proscriptive discussion of the sexuality of Abu Ghraib is suppressed or all together silenced in public discourse.
Through sexual shaming rhetoric, freedom of sexual expression is limited and restricted; subsequently, social norms of sexuality are constructed to exclude knowledge of sexual variance, which reinforces heteronormative dominance in the public culture of sex
(1999). Because the “typical response” to sexual shame is “more shame,” the culture reproduces itself and creates an environment within which moralist politics operate
(Warner, 1999). Moralism, Warner explains, is “when some sexual tastes or practices… are mandated for everyone,” which is differentiated from morality in that it is a form of language power that imposes notions of “good” and “natural” sexuality on the collective; morality, on the other hand, is more subjective and refers to transference of judgment 43 between individuals rather than a forceful strategy to organize social life (1999). As a form of language-power, moralism aims to shape “not just sex, but knowledge about sex”
(Warner, 1999, 9). Ultimately, moralist sexual shaming constructs heteronormative sexuality in public discourse21 by employing proscriptive language that defines good sex practices exclusively within the boundaries of heterosexuality, which polices discourses of desire.
Although both sexual and political fear aim to police a socially organized society through state language-power, I argue that they differ primarily in the way the fear it is experienced. Whereas political fear functions to manipulate government politics and encourage consent from within the constituency, sexual fear functions to deny sexual autonomy, which Warner (1999)22 and Cornell (1995)23 say is fundamental for a person to develop full personhood and sexual freedom. On the one hand, political fear affects one’s sense of security and safety in relation to one’s environment. In other words, people in highly populated urban areas like New York or Washington D.C. are more likely to experience greater fear of a terrorist attack than people in a smaller, rural locations in the
Midwest (Associated Press, 2006). Also, political fear is different in the way that it appeals to nationalist sentiments as an “American,” effectively ensuring conformity by illustrating the social repercussions for those people who are not American-enough. For example, the backlash against Muslim-Americans after 9/11 is characterized by racist, anti-Islamic
21 See Warner’s Trouble with Normal for a comprehensive discussion of moralism in formal institutions and popular culture (1999). 22 See Warner, 1999, especially pages 4-10. 23 In reference to sexual autonomy and personhood, Cornell explains the “the freedom to struggle to become a person is a chance or opportunity which depends on the minimum conditions of individuation” (1995, p. 27). She outlines the minimum conditions of individuation on page 4. 44 rhetoric that identifies the non-Christian, non-white status as evidence of betrayal to the country24. Thus, the state encourages citizen’s conformity by drawing exclusionary terms of the security state bargain along lines of (perceived) national origin. Within the context of
Abu Ghraib, the discourse reveals a tension between discussions of human rights violation and identifying justifiable interrogation tactics in wartime. While human rights discourse that elevates “detainees” as people deserving of rights is often silenced by the overtly racism anti-Islamic rhetoric that dehumanizes them is justified as pro-U.S. patriotism.
Sexual fear, on the other hand, appeals to one’s sense of safety in relation to gender identity and sexuality. For example, women typically feel a greater threat of sexual violence than men due to gender differences,25 (which might vary due to environment, but is not escapable in the same way as political fear). Also, political fear is more temporary than sexual fear. A national poll reports that in 2006, “35% [of people] nationally worried they’d be victims of sexual terrorism, a number that spiked to 43 after the alleged terrorist plot in Britain was announced” (Associated Press, 2006). Alternatively, changes in one’s sense of sexual fear are typically more affected by one’s personal experience than time.
A culture of sexual fear governs the public culture of sex through moralist rhetoric aimed to shame and silence discussion of variant sexualities. Through the “careful work of disattention,” a rhetoric of shame is “produced by the assumptions of everyday talk”
(Warner, 1999, p. 180) Warner explains that a public knowledge of sex is created by a language of shame that functions to “hierarchize the contests of sexual knowledges” and
24 For example, see: http://thinkprogress.org/2011/01/11/king-muslims-american/. 25 See Rachel H. Pain’s “Social Geographies of Women’s Fear of Crime” in Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, New Series, (22)2, pp 231-244, for more information about gender differences and experience of violent crime (1997). 45 “ensure that an official speech always trumps the knowledges of sexual culture, helping to thwart possibility of cumulative and transmissible knowledge” of variant sexualities
(1999, p. 181). For example, George W. Bush explains that the soldier’s behavior at Abu
Ghraib "does not reflect the nature of the American people," which implies that “natural tendencies” of “Americans” are “free from perversions” (Puar, 2004, p 523). Through moralist rhetoric, Bush effectively proscribed a right and wrong way to be an American and reinforced the dominance of heteronormativity.
What are the perversions of Abu Ghraib? One of the ways in which Abu Ghraib discourse produces knowledges of sex is through the identification of “perverse” and
“abnormal” sexuality. The repetition of language like “disgusting”26 and “appalling”27 in
Abu Ghraib media coverage and critical commentary constructs the normative moralist response, yet it is usually unclear whether the descriptors are in reference to the depictions of homosexual acts and sadomasochistic behavior or to the conditions of torture (Butler,
2007). In the media, the explicitly perverse nature of Abu Ghraib is discussed within the framework of the U.S. soldier’s behavior (pathologized and exceptionalized) and framed by associations with sadomasochism28, homosexuality29 and (female) sexual dominance30.
Effectively, the shaming language of the framework communicates that the public culture of sex prohibits perverse sexuality and ascribes non-normative sexuality as taboo.
An examination of the role of spectators as consumers is critical for a
26 See Butler, 2007. 27 See Raimondo, 2004. 28 See Weiss, 2009. 29 See: Puar, 2005. 30 See: Sjoberg and Gentry, 2007; Sontag, 2004; Weiss, 2009. 46 comprehensive analysis of sex scandals. The relationship between the scandal, the corporate media system and the spectators/consumers is often neglected or presented as an oversimplified and formulaic model centered on a public figure as the primary actor/agent and American citizens as spectators who "consume the spectacle obediently" (Apostolidis and Williams, 2004, p. 23). Meanwhile, the media system occupies a conflicted position as both good public servant/informant and bad producer of morally reprehensible sexual content (Apostolidis and Williams, 2004). Paul Apostolidis and Juliet Williams warn against this reductive conceptualization, arguing that it neglects the socio-historical politics that inform and affect the production of public discourse around the scandal and serves both to deny agency to the spectators and to ahistoricize the event (2004).
What does spectator agency look like? What is the relationship between media and consumer and how does it affect Abu Ghraib discourse? The primary difference between a spectator and a voyeur is the implied agency of the person in question. The effects of erotophobia are compounded by the unique location of spectators as voyeurs in relation to sex scandal coverage. Association with voyeurism, or “admitting one likes to watch,” is unique to sex scandals31 and “suggests that the boundaries enabling the public to view sex scandals from a safe and detached distance are unusually thin, unsteady and permeable"
(Apostolidis and Williams, 2004, p 6).
An analysis of the implicit voyeurism in the consumption of Abu Ghraib acknowledges the subjectivity of producers and consumers and illuminates questions about power and implicit taboos in sexuality discourse. The Abu Ghraib media consumer-as-
31 Examples of the voyeuristic shame or guilt in the consumption of sex scandals as unique to sex-related scandals is discussed in “Introduction” of Public Affairs (Apostolidis and Williams, 2004). 47 voyeur32 conceptualization implies that consumers experience pleasure33 in viewing the images and seek the content (as opposed to the photographs as a visual assault and unavoidable)34. This perspective facilitates a discussion of the ways in which the discourse produces taboos by suppressing or silencing alternative views. I argue that in relation to the political and sexual culture of fear, producing taboos effectively enhances the desire to consume the scandal and to “know” sex.
Because prohibitions35 are the product of a heteronormative boundary between
“normal” and “deviant” sexuality, desire that is generated by prohibitions is inherently deviant. Thus, I argue that although Williams’ model is informative and useful, it is not entirely complete. The model should reflect not only that the combined effect of fear and taboo results in enhanced desire but also that the desire is policed by fear which enhances the taboo of the desire. For example, a culture of sexual fear that associates shame with the sexual taboos depicted in the Abu Ghraib images could facilitate desire to view and consume the images; however, the desire to consume socially prohibited sex acts is also a taboo itself. Thus, the desire is inherently deviant which means that expressions of the
(deviant) desire are policed by the fear of sexual shaming and stigma. In other words, I argue that desire is not only a product of the relationship between fear and taboo, it also functions to reproduce it.
Because desire is central to human sexuality, the distinction between desire as a
32 Although I am not arguing that all Abu Ghraib consumers were voyeuristic, I think the general lack of examination of voyeurism in this context is notable. 33 In reference to reality television, Patterson explains that the pleasure of viewing is not only the power dynamic between viewer and viewed but also “in the way that the screen makes an impossible real available for encounter” (2004, p. 115). 34 See Cornell, 2003. 35 Prohibitions generate desire: see Butler (2006), especially p. 126 and Warner (1999). 48 static product and an active variable is important. When desire materializes as deviance, it is a product of sexual shaming and fear; however, when the power to articulate desire free of shame and fear belongs to individuals rather than the state, there is greater potential for inclusive knowledges of sex and an authentic public culture(s) of sex that is/are better representative of sexualities. Warner (1999) and Cornell (2003) assert that sexual autonomy and freedom of expression are fundamental for the development of full personhood and self-respect. Cornell explains, “the articulation of desire has always been assumed as necessary for moral freedom and responsibility (2003, p. 144). Through the application of Abu Ghraib as a sex scandal, the fear, taboo and desire model of analysis proves to be an effective way to examine some of the ways in which discourses of desire are governed in a neoliberal security state.
49 Chapter 3
The Legacy of Abu Ghraib In the wake of the publicity of Abu Ghraib photographs in May 2004, the U.S. soldiers involved were depicted as “bad apples” whose sexually perverse behavior was reprehensible, yet sensational and exceptional. However, a socio-historical examination of the latter half of the 20th century suggests that Abu Ghraib discourse is not only unexceptional, it is arguably a deliberate attempt to promote neoliberal notions of personal responsibility and self-sufficiency in an effort to obscure issues of power and institutional accountability. Notably, the exceptionalization of the events and individualization of the behaviors at Abu Ghraib obscured the ways in which sexual shaming and fear functioned to shape an implicit discourse of sexuality.
In review, neoliberalism values privatization and personal responsibility, which materialize as pro-big business policies that ensure an upward distribution of wealth at the expense of the social good. Through the production and reinforcement of a culture of political and sexual fear, security state politics encourage citizen obedience and discourage dissent in the name of nationalism, which materializes in public discourse as patriotism. Although sexual and political cultures of fear are experienced differently, collectively they effect the ways in which the discourse is framed and the range of possible interpretations in the discourse. Although sexual shaming suppresses discussion of the ways in which discourses of sexuality are produced, the process by which discussion is silenced communicates the sexual norms that demarcate the boundary between normative and deviant sexualities.
50 The media coverage of Abu Ghraib suggests that the photographs show “truths” of non- normative sexuality: sadomasochism, homosexuality, female dominant (dominatrix), beastiality, necrophilia, masturbation. The emphasis on prohibitions or perversions in the photographs cements the taboo, coupled by the fear of the Other - the terrorist, the Muslim, the brown skin – as a product of the political and sexual culture of fear, which fuels the desire to participate and consume sex/ knowledge of sex; thus, the inherent agency of the citizen who desires seeks the content (i.e. participates) translates to a form of spectatorship better described as voyeuristic consumer. In this way, it is clear that the linear progression of Williams’ model – taboo, fear, then desire – is incomplete. A discussion of fear, taboo and desire must include the ways in which each produce and reinforce one another.
Because neoliberalism relies on a clear distinction between public and private realms, sex scandals are potentially subversive by definition; however, publicized sex can also reinforce the neoliberal agenda. For example, scholarly critiques of Abu Ghraib media coverage discuss the ways in which the media’s emphasis on sex functioned to depoliticize and distract from the wrongs committed by people in power. By emphasizing the violations of normative sexuality in the photographs rather than critically engaging in the institutional policy corruption and the crimes committed, Abu Ghraib coverage distracted from the historical and social issues, which some scholars argue led to a depoliticization in the media coverage.
The illumination of the public/private divide appears to be subversive, but visibility is not always politically transgressive.36 Because sex scandals occur in a neoliberal security state governed by moralist language, Abu Ghraib-as-sex scandal arguably
36 See Butler, 2006. 51 reinforced heteronormativity boundaries of sexuality and thus reinforced a moralist public culture of sex. Furthermore, moralism, sexual shaming and sexual fear, which are effective strategies employed to govern knowledges of sex, often materialize as legislation to restrict variant sexualities and persecution37 of anyone who embodies a threat to the heteronormative social order.
37 Rubin notes that sex legislation and legal persecution of sexual minorities has historically followed periodic sex panics in American history (ex 20th century hysteria over “white slave trade” and recent panic over porn) (Duggan 1990). 52 References
Allison, D. (1984). Public silence, private terror, in Pleasure and Danger: exploring
female sexuality, pp 103-114, ed. Carole S. Vance. Boston, Massachusetts:
Routledge & Kegan Paul plc
Anderson, J. (2007). Rape Myths. The Washington Coalition of Sexual Assault
Programs: Research and Advocacy Digest, 9(3), 1-9.
Andersen, M. L. (2005). Thinking about women: A quarter century’s view. Gender
and society, 19(4), pp 437-455. Retrieved December 1, 2010
from http://www.jstor.org/ stable/30044611.
Apostolidis, P. & J. A. Williams. (2004). Introduction: Sex scandals and discourses of
power, pp 1-38, in Public Affairs: Politics in the Age of Sex Scandals. Ed. Paul
Apostolidis and Juliet A. Williams. Duke University Press, Durham & London
Associated Press, (2006). Many Americans fear another terrorist attack. MSNBC.
Retrieved April 2011 from http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14598506/ns/us_news-
security/.
Bazin, A. & H Gray. (1960). The ontology of the photographic image. Film quarterly,
(13)4, pp 4-9. Retrieved
from http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=00151386%28196022%2913%3A4%3C4%3AT
OOTPI%3E2.0.CO%3B2-0.
Berlant, L. (2008). Against sexual scandal. The Nation. Retrieved March 2011
from http://www.thenation.com/article/against-sexual-scandal
Brownmiller, S. (1993). Against Our Will: Men, Women, and Rape. Chicago: Ballantine 53 Books.
Buchwald, E. (1993). Preamble. In E. Buchwald, P. R. Fletcher & M. Roth (Eds.),
Transforming a rape culture (pp. ii). Minneapolis, MN: Milkweed Editions.
Butler, J. (2007). Torture and the ethics of photography. Environment and planning D:
Society and space, (25), pp 951-966. Retrieved March
2011, doi:10.1068/d2506jb.
Butler, J. (2006). Gender trouble: Feminism and the subversion of identity. New York:
Routledge Classics.
Butler, J. (1993). Introduction, in Bodies that matter: On the discursive limits of 'sex,' pp
1-26. New York: Routledge.
Burke, C. (2004). Camp all-American, hanoi Jane, and the high-and-tight: Gender,
folklore, and changing military culture. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.
Brzezinski, Z. (2007). Terrorized by the 'war on terror': How a three-word mantra has
undermined America. The Washington Post. Retrieved March 2011
from http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-
dyn/content/article/2007/03/23/AR2007032301613_pf.html.
Califia, P. (1980). Feminism and sadomasochism, in Public sex: The culture of radical
sex, pp. 165-174. Pittsburgh, PA: Cleiss Press Inc.
Cirillo, M. & S. Ricchiardi (2004). Abu Ghraib timeline. American Journal Review.
Retrieved March 10, 2011 from http://www.ajr.org/Article.asp?id=3730.
Collins, P. H. (2000). Black feminist thought: Knowledge, consciousness, and the politics
of empowerment, 2nd ed. New York: Routledge.
Cornell, D. (2003). Autonomy re-imagined. Journal for the Psychoanalysis of Culture
54 and Society, 8(1), pp. 144-149. Retrieved December 1, 2010 from
http://muse.jhu.edu.proxygw.wrlc.org/journals/journal_for_the_psychoanalysis_o
f_culture_and_society/v008/8.1cornell.html
Cornell, D. (1995). The imaginary domain: Abortion, pornography, and sexual
harassment. New York: Routledge.
D’Emilio, J. & E. B. Freedman. (1997). Intimate matters: A history of sexuality in
America, 2nd edition. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Dean, J. (2004). Making (it) public, pp 259-270, in Public Affairs: Politics in the Age of
Sex Scandals. Ed. Paul Apostolidis and Juliet A. Williams. Duke University Press,
Durham & London.
Dines, G. and R. Jensen. (2009). Pornography, feminist debates on. Retrieved December
2010 from http://gaildines.com/2009/09/pornography-feminist-debates-on/.
Dworkin, A. (1987) Intercourse. Location unknown: Free Press.
DuBois, E. & L. Gordon. (1984). Seeking ecstasy on the battlefield: Danger and pleasure
in nineteenth century feminist sexual thought, in Pleasure and Danger, pp. 31-49,
ed. Carole S. Vance. Boston, Massachusetts: Routledge & Kegan Paul plc.
Duggan, L. (2003). Twilight of inequality? Neoliberalism, cultural politics, and the attack
on democracy. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.
______(2002). The new homonormativity: The sexual politics of neoliberalism in
Materializing democracy: Toward a revitalized cultural politics, pp 175-194. R.
Castronovo and D. D. Nelson, eds. Durham and London: Duke University Press.
______(1990). From instincts to politics: Writing the history of sexuality in the U.S.
The Journal of Sex Research, (27)1, pp. 95-109. Retrieved March 2011
55 from http://www.jstor.org/stable/3812885.
Duggan, L & N. D. Hunter. (2006). Sex wars: Sexual dissent and political culture, 10th
anniversary edition. New York and London: Routledge Taylor and Francis Group.
Eisenman, S. F. (2007). The abu ghraib effect. London: Reaktion Books.
Eisenstein, Z. (2007). Sexual decoys: Gender, race and war in imperial democracy.
London and New York: Zed Books Ltd.
Ellis, K., et al. (1986). Caught looking: Feminism, pornography, and censorship. New
York: Caught Looking, Inc.
Enloe, C. (2007). Globalization and militarization: Feminists make the link. Lanham,
MD: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers, Inc.
Enloe, C. (2004). Wielding masculinity inside Abu Ghraib: Making feminist sense of an
American military scandal. Asian Journal of Women's Studies, (10)3. Retrieved
April 2011 from http://online.worcester.edu/external/kwaters/Readings
/Wielding%20Masculinity%20inside%20Abu%20Ghraib.htm.
Filipovic, J. (2008). Offensive feminism, in Yes means yes: Visions of female sexual
power and a world without rape, pp. 13-27, (eds.) Jacklyn Friedman and Jessica
Valenti. Berkeley, CA: Seal Press.
Fiorina, M. P. (2006). Culture war? The myth of a polarized America, 2nd ed. New York:
Pearson Education, Inc.
Follman, M. & T. Clark-Flory. (2006). The Abu Ghraib files: Prosecutions and
convictions. Salon. Retrieved March 2011 from
http://www.salon.com/news/abu_ghraib/2006/03/14/prosecutions_convictions/ind
ex.html.
56 Foucault, M. (1978). History of sexuality, volume 1, translated by Robert Hurley. New
York: Random House, Inc.
Fowles, S. M. (2008). The fantasy of acceptable ‘non-consent’: Why the female
sexual submissive scares us (and why she shouldn’t), in Yes means yes: Visions of
female sexual power and a world without rape, pp 117-125, (eds.) Jacklyn
Friedman and Jessica Valenti. Berkeley, CA: Seal Press.
Gamson, J. (2004). Normal sins: Sex scandal narratives as institutional morality tales, p
39- 68 in Public Affairs: Politics in the Age of Sex Scandals. Ed. Paul Apostolidis
and Juliet A. Williams. Duke University Press, Durham & London
Gourevitch, P. (Writer). (2009, June 26). Fall guy: Act two, be careful who you love
[Radio Broadcast Episode]. In Chicago Public Radio [Producer] This American
Life. Public Radio International: http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-
archives/episode/384/fall-guy
Gray, J. (2004). Power and vainglory, p 47-55 in Abu Ghraib: The politics of torture.
Berkeley, CA: North Atlantic Books.
Griffith, D. (2006). A good war is hard to find: The art of violence in America. Brooklyn,
NY: Soft Skull Press.
Harder, L. (2008). State fantasies and intimate relationships: Family forms and functions
in Canada and the United States. Retrieved March 14, 2011
from http://montreal2008.ipsa.org/site/images/PAPERS/section3/RC%2052%20-
%20Harder%20-%203.2.pdf.
Hassan, G. (2005). Fear: A political tool. Countercurrents. Retrieved April 2011
from http://www.countercurrents.org/iraq-hassan250405.htm.
57 Hersh, S. M. (2004). Annals of national security: The gray zone. The New Yorker.
Retrieved April 2011
from http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2004/05/24/040524fa_fact?currentPage
=all.
Introduction: The Abu Ghraib files. (2006). Retrieved March 2011 from
http://www.salon.com/news/abu_ghraib/2006/03/14/introduction.
Jaggar, A. M. (2001). Is globalization good for women? Comparative Literature, (53)4,
pp. 298-314. Retrieved April 2011 from http://www.jstor.org/stable/3593521 .
Kakoudaki, D. (2004). Pinup: The American secret women in World War II, in Porn
Studies, ed. L. Williams, pp. 335- 369. Durham and London: Duke University
Press.
Kim-Puri, H.J. (2005). Conceptualizing gender-sexuality-state-nation: An introduction.
Gender and society, (19)2. pp. 137-159. Retrieved March 2011 from
http://www.jstor.org/stable/30044580.
Kipnis, L. (2006). The female thing: Dirt, envy, sex, vulnerability. New York: Vintage
Books.
Klein, M. (2008). America’s war on sex: The attack on law, lust and liberty. Westport,
CT: Praeger Publishers.
Levit, N. & Verchick, R. (2006). Feminist legal theory: A primer. New York, NY: NYU
Press.
Linden, R. R. (1981). Introduction: Against sadomasochism in Against sadomasochism:
A radical feminist analysis, pp 1-15, ed. Robin Ruth Linden, Darlene R. Pagano,
Diana E. H. Russell and Susan Leigh Star. San Francisco, CA: Frog In The Well.
58 MacKinnon, C. (2006). Women's September 11th: Rethinking the international law of
conflict. Harvard International Law Journal, (47)1.
Marchart, O. (2002). Media darkness: Reflection on public space, light and conflict.
Retrieved March 2011 from http://www.debalie.nl/artikel.jsp?articleid=19694.
McChesney, R. W. (2001). Global media, neoliberalism, and imperialism. Monthly
Review, (52)10. Retrieved March 10, 2011 from
http://www.monthlyreview.org/301rwm.htm.
McGreal, C. (2010). US soldier ‘killed Afghan civilians for sport and collected fingers as
trophies’. The Guardian. Retrieved March 2011 from
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/sep/09/us-soldiers-afghan-civilians-fingers.
Millett, K. (1968). Sexual politics 1968. Marxists Internet Archive. Retrieved December
2010, from http://www.marxists.org/subject/women/authors/millett-
kate/theory.htm
Morgan, R. (1980). Theory and practice: Pornography and rape. In L. J. Lederer (Ed.),
Take back the night, pp. 134-140. New York: William Morrow.
Oliver, K. (2007). Women as weapons of war: Iraq, sex and the media. New York:
Columbia University Press.
Patterson, Z. (2004). Going on-line: Consuming pornography in the digital era, in Porn
Studies, ed L. Williams, pp 104-123. Durham and London: Duke University
Press.
Plante, R. F. (2006). Sexual spanking, the self, and the construction of
deviance in Sadomasochism: Powerful pleasures, pp 59-79, (eds.) Peggy J.
Kleinplatz and Charles Moser. Binghamton, NY: Harrington Park Press.
59 Pa, M. (2001). Beyond the pleasure principle: The criminalization of consensual
sadomasochistic sex. Texas J. Women and Law, 11.
Power, N. (2009). One dimensional woman. Winchester, UK: Zero Books.
Puar, J. K. (2007). Terrorist assemblages: Homonationalism in queer times. Durham,
NC: Duke University Press.
______(2005). Queer times, queer assemblages. Social Text, (23)3-4, pp 121-139.
Retrieved February, 2011 from http://socialtext.dukejournals.org/cgi/reprint/23/3-
4_84-85/121.pdf
______(2004). Abu Ghraib: Arguing against exceptionalism. Feminist Studies,
(30) 2, pp 522-534. Http:///www.jstor.org/stable/20458978
Queen, C. and L. Comella. (2008). The necessary revolution: Sex-positive feminism in
the post-barnard era. The Communication Review, 11, pp. 274-291.
Raimondo, J. (2004). Abu Ghraib and the pornography of power. Antiwar.com. Retrieved
March 2011 from http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2004/05/14/abu-ghraib-and-
the-pornography-of-power/.
Rian, K. (1982). Sadomasochism and the social construction of desire, in
Against sadomasochism: A radical feminist analysis, pp 45-50, (eds.) Robin Ruth
Linden, Darlene R. Pagano, Diana E. H. Russell and Susan Leigh Star. San
Francisco, CA: Frog In The Well.
Richardson, D. (2005). Desiring sameness? The rise of a neoliberal politics of
normalisation. Antipode, (37)3, pp 515-535. Retrieved March 14, 2011 from
Wiley-Blackwell database, DOI: 10.1111/j.0066-4812.2005.00509.x
Roberts, D. (1998). Killing the black body: Race, reproduction and the meaning of
60 liberty. New York: Vintage.
Rubin, G. (1984). Thinking sex: Notes for a radical theory of the politics of sexuality, in
Pleasure and Danger: exploring female sexuality, pp 267-319, (ed.) Carole S.
Vance. Boston, MA: Routledge & Kegan Paul plc
Sarracino, C. & K. M. Scott (2008). The porning of America: The rise of porn culture,
what it means and where we go from here. Boston: Beacon Press.
Siegel, D. (2007). Sisterhood interrupted: From radical women to grrls gone wild. New
York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Sims, K. and R. Mason. (1982). Racism and sadomasochism: A conversation with
two black lesbians, in Against sadomasochism: A radical feminist analysis, pp. 9
9- 105, (eds.) Robin Ruth Linden, Darlene R. Pagano, Diana E. H. Russell and
Susan Leigh Star. San Francisco, CA: Frog In The Well.
Simon, W. (1994). Deviance as history: The future of perversion. Archives of sexual
behavior, (23)1, pp 1-20. DOI: 10.1007/BF01541615.
Sjoberg, L. & C. E. Gentry. (2007). Mothers, monsters, whores: Women's violence in
global politics. London & New York: Zed Books.
Smith, A. M. (2009). Sex scandals, 'responsible fatherhood' and the 2008 election
campaign: When 'sex talk' trumps race and class. The Scholar and Feminist
Online, Toward a Vision of Sexual and Economic Justice, (7)3. Retrieved March
2011 from www.barnard.edu/sfonline.
Snitow, A., C. Stansell, & S. Thompson. (1983). Introduction in Powers of desire: The
politics of sexuality pp 9-47, (eds.) Ann Snitow, Christine Stansell, and Sharon
Thompson. New York: Monthly Review Press.
61 Sobschack, V. (2004). Carnal thoughts: Embodiment and moving image culture.
Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Sontag, S. (2004). Regarding the torture of others. New York Times Magazine. Retrieved
March 20, 2011 from http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/23/magazine/regarding-
the-torture-of-others.html.
Stewart, D. J. (1977). Pornography, obscenity and capitalism. The Antioch Review, (35)4,
pp 389-398. Retrieved March 2011 from http://www.jstor/org/stable/4637957
Thorsen, D. E. & Lie, A. (n.d.). What is neoliberalism? Retrieved March 14, 2011
from http://www.statsvitenskap.uio.no/ISVprosjektet/neoliberalism.pdf
Tong, R. (2009). Feminist thought: A more comprehensive introduction (3rd ed.).
Colorado: Westview Press.
Troost, C. H. (2008). Reclaiming touch: Rape culture, explicit verbal consent and body
sovereignty, in Yes Means Yes: Visions of female sexual power & a world without
rape, pp. 171-177, (eds.) Jacklyn Friedman and Jessica Valenti. Berkeley, CA:
Seal Press.
Vance, C. S. (1984). Pleasure and danger: Toward a politics of sexuality in Pleasure
and Danger: exploring female sexuality pp 1-28, Carole S. Vance, (ed.). Boston,
Massachusetts: Routledge & Kegan Paul plc
Varon, J. (2004). It was the spectacle, stupid: The Clinton-Lewinsky-Starr affair and the
politics of the gaze, p 232-258 in Public Affairs: Politics in the Age of Sex
Scandals. Ed. Paul Apostolidis and Juliet A. Williams. Durham & London: Duke
University Press.
Warner, M. (1999). The trouble with normal: Sex, politics, and the ethics of queer life.
62 Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press
Weiss, M. (2009). Rumsfeld!: Consensual BDSM and ‘sadomasochistic’ torture at Abu
Ghraib. Division II Faculty Publications, Paper 45. Retrieved March 1, 2011 from
http://wesscholar.wesleyan.edu/div2facpubs/45
______(2008). Gay shame and BDSM pride: Neoliberalism, privacy and sexual
politics. Division II Faculty Publications, Paper 48. Retrieved March 2011
from http://wesscholar.wesleyan.edu/div2facpubs/48.
______(2006). Mainstreaming kink: The politics of BDSM representation in U.S.
popular media in Sadomasochism: Powerful pleasures, eds. Peggy J. Kleinplatz
and Charles Moser, pp 103-132. Binghampton, NY: Harrington Park Press.
Williams, J. A. (2004). Privacy in the (too much) information age. P 213-231 in Public
Affairs: Politics in the Age of Sex Scandals. Ed. Paul Apostolidis and Juliet A.
Williams. Duke University Press, Durham & London
Williams, L. (2004a). Porn studies: Proliferating pornographies on/scene: An
introduction, p 1-23. Porn Studies, ed. Linda Williams.
______(2004b). Skin flicks on the racial border: Pornography, exploitation and
inter-racial lust, in Porn Studies, ed L. Williams, pp 271-308. Durham and
London: Duke University Press.
______(1999). Hard core: Power, pleasure and the ‘frenzy of the visible.’
Berkeley, Los Angeles, CA: University of California Press.
______(1991). Film bodies: Gender, genre, and excess. Film Quarterly, (44)4, pp.
63 2-13. Retrieved March 2011 from JSTOR
database, http://www.jstor.org/stable/1212758.
______(1989). Power, pleasure and perversion: Sadomasochistic film pornography.
Representations, 27, pp 37-65. Retrieved February 2011
from http://www.jstor.org/stable/2928483.
Wittig, M. (1992). One is not born a woman, in Writing on the body: Female embodiment
and feminist theory, pp 309- 317. Eds. K. Conboy, N. Medina, & S. Stanbury.
New York, Columbia University Press.
Young, I. M. (2003). The logic of masculinist protection: reflections on the current
security state. Signs, (29)1, pp 1-25. Retrieved
from http://www.jstor.org.proxygw.wrlc.org/stable/10.1086/375708.
64