pornography or erotics?

By saying, “But pornography is a direct denial of the power of the erotic, for it represents the suppression of true feeling. Pornography emphasizes sensation without feeling”, Lorde (1989) establishes a clear boundary between pornography and erotics. What makes erotics so significant, so different, so acute, regardless of gender or sex, is the pleasure the subjects experience or, oftentimes, conjure up. This is a similar parallel with objectification and subjectification where the former is passive and the latter is active. However, I have been a little suspicious of such ‘objectification’ in pornography where sex pleasure may not be realized in the action but by exhibiting the action in absolute details by the actors whereas for (some) audience, their enjoyment  may be incurred simply by watching such actions. Surely, their enjoyment could be related to sex, or other, such as s&m ones, etc. But one thing seems clear to: such incitements may vary among individuals and therefore become individualized. And even this individualization may not be formed overnight and keep evolving over time. An once pornographic entity may be eroticized some other time. This comes back to Chong’s comment on the problems for Critical Theory has been long critiqued. That is, general claims are made to be inclusive of all subjects from one single or a limited number of so-called perspectives only because they are interested to the author.   



The problem of ‘objectification’ lies in the Chinese translation rather than the term itself. Instead of “物化“, “客体化” can be a better alternative. The connotations of the two words in Chinese are utterly different. How can they be termed together or used interchangeably? Also, I guess a linguist’s understanding of “object” and “objectification” would be much more dynamic and inspiring. In this regard, I guess, many problems of theory’s dissemination through Chinese come from inappropriate translation rather than the theories themselves. The intended manipulation of Maxist concepts are classical examples, of which “物化” is a typical one.

A little advertisement

Lunatic Sassay E-Feminists is a media studies blog develop by a group of East Asian feminists. Please take a look. You are welcome to join us! 

Here are two readings listed in a MIT course:

Dworkin, Andrea. “Pornography Happens to Women.” Speech presented at Speech, Equality and Harm: Feminist Legal Perspectives on Pornography and Hate Propaganda. University of Chicago Law School, March 6, 1993.
McElroy, Wendy. “Banning Pornography Endangers Women.” International Society for Individual Liberty pamphlet.


Based on the readings we collected so far, I propose to summarize the process of sexualization briefly as follows:


Private & domestic -> make p & d partially visible -> more personal,more human, softer -> intro sex/ sexual activity into the public inhititedly: men only, and concealed from general public view ( only found in limited media forms) -> invasion of sex into various media -> pervasive and abundant in media: not only representational, but more active, and even interactive (e.g. cybersex)

China’s Me generation

This China’s Me generation is an interesting article fromTime. I’m just curious: Are we? or not?

1.Gill, R. 2003, ‘From Sexual Objectification to Sexual Subjectification:
The Resexualisation of Women’s Bodies in the Media
”, *Feminist Media
Studies*, vol. 3, no. 1,* *pp. 100–106.

*The article begins at the second page aka p100*
*On this matter, we can also refer to another book:*

—- Bodies Imaged Women, Self-objectification and Subjectification. By Robinson, Shelagh 2004
2.Schein, L. 1994, ‘The Consumption of Color and the Politics of White Skin in Post-Mao China‘, *Social Text*, no. 41,* *pp. 141-164.

*The one about ‘white women’s image’ in and the shifting perspective in
looking at them from 1980s to 1990s in China*

3. *In order to under what Gill and Schein talked about ‘the gaze’, you might need to review Laura Mulvey’s seminal work on theorising ‘the male gaze’:*
Mulvey, L. 1975, ‘Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema‘, *Screen*, vol. 16, no. 3,* *pp. 6-18.

* This article is largely based on psychoanalysis methods. But the concept of ‘the male
gaze’ is an important one.

4. On important historical shifts in contemporary China:

Lu, S.H.P. 1996, ‘Postmodernity, Popular Culture, and the Intellectual: A
Report on Post-Tiananmen China
‘, *boundary 2*, vol. 23, no. 2,* *pp.

5.Perry, E.J. 1993, ‘China in 1992: An Experiment in Neo-Authoritarianism‘,
*Asian Survey*, vol. 33, no. 1,* *pp. 12-21.

6. If there is further interest, I have also attached a chapter “neoliberalism
with Chinese characteristics” from:

Harvey, D. 2005, *A Brief History of Neoliberalism*, Oxford University

7. *The Taiwan media scholar Ke Yufen’s article on Hello Kitty explains quite
a few media studies notions (esp. Frankfurt School and Baudrillard) in

Ke, Y. 2001, ‘*流行文化中認同政治的產製:以凱蒂貓的消費為例* (Production of identity politics in
popular culture: an example from the consumption of Hello Kitty)
*‘, in 郭良文(ed.), *《台灣的廣告發展》*, 學富文化, Taipei, pp. 273-293.