Mass Grave - Wounded Knee, South Dakota As you know, graphic images and displays have been used in numerous instances and issues from seal pups, furs and meat is murder to fetal rights and abortion rights, from cigarette smoking to The Holocaust, Native Genocide and Black Lynching including 14 year old Emmett Till (July 25, 1941 – August 28, 1955)
Without trying to defend or justify the use of images to get people's attention on an issue I will say this, it matters what spirit the person or persons utilizing these “signs” are acting in. There’s a big difference between acting in love for all people involved and acting in a self-righteous, we’re always right, hateful manner. Sometimes this is obviously the case, sometimes the viewer may not be ready to accept the realities implicated with those images.
My first thought on "squick" is, might this be another way for one to turn off their conscience? Fainting from the site of blood in surgery aside, are not most reactions of physical repulsion connected to a sense of right and wrong?
Surely you will agree that some things are morally reprehensible and we have a mind and conscience so as to be able distinguish between choices and use sound "judgment". Regardless of what one chooses to be their code of "internal beliefs and ethics" there are many examples we could both think of that in our "judgment" are just plain wrong.
Some people believe that shooting abortion providers is morally justified. Others believe that having sex with children is normal and we hear that there is plenty of pornography out there to prove it. What about the pornographers of war and torture, can you say Iraq, Abu Ghraib and Gitmo? Haven't the people behind these actions lied to themselves or perhaps incorporated "squick" to force the realities that their actions were deserving of being judged as morally reprehensible or worse out of their minds so they could continue in senseless was and barbaric torture? We are in a war of words, images and emotions, there is a war on for our minds and a lot more.
In some cases “repulsion” may be “an illegitimate measure of virtue”, in most it’s something to listen and react to accordingly, or to be concerned about if our repulsion reflex is no longer where it once was.
P.S. Speaking of "fetal pornography" what do you think of this "pornography" aimed at teens?
I think that you and I are talking about two completely different things. What you are describing above is moral disengagement, which is defined by wikipedia as: "a term from social psychology for the process of convincing the self that ethical standards do not apply to oneself in a particular context by separating moral reactions from inhumane conduct by disabling the mechanism of self-condemnation"
ReplyDeleteThe association between right/wrong and the triggering of a physical repulsion reaction is rather tenuous. For example, while murder is wrong and induces repulsion, money laundering or corporate fraud does not. On the other hand, piercings or tattoos are not morally objectionable, but some people find it disgusting.
I am certainly not advocating that anyone should become morally complacent. Instead, my article describes circumstances in which our physical reactions can be manipulated into false moral conclusions. Physical reactions are not a moral meter stick, so to speak. I find that the concept of "squick" makes it easier to put aside the superficial reactions and move forward with a more meaningful and valid assessment of morality or ethics or whatever you want to call it.
That’s a mouth and mind-full on “moral disengagement”. I’ll quote one form of it below from the same wikipedia page:
ReplyDelete“One method of disengagement is portraying inhumane behavior as though it has a moral purpose in order to make it socially acceptable. For example, torture, in order to obtain information necessary to protect the nation’s citizens, may be seen as acceptable. Voltaire is quoted as saying, “Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities” (Bandura, 1999).
Is there not a physical component involved in the process of “moral disengagement” and thus a possible intersection with “squick” which you say “refers to the physical sensation of repulsion, but does not imply a moral component…" i.e. “I find this personally unappealing but I don't see anything wrong with it".
I can see that applying to say someone feeling ill after witnessing the blood of surgery. And I can see how someone could feel "squicky" in the context of being in discomfort over seeing the graphic photos of “mangled, dismembered fetuses, in a pool of thick blood and tissue”, in relation to their chosen set of “internal beliefs and ethics”.
In fact these beliefs have led them to not only see nothing wrong with the providing abortion services but to see it as a heroic act in support of women’s rights and freedoms.
Before you judge what reactions are superficial or perhaps go deeper than we realize, what are the reasons these displays of abortion cause you, myself and, others discomfort and even anger leading to violence?
Thanks for the dialogue; I appreciate it.
It is obvious that we will not agree on this topic. I get the sense that you and I have very different feelings regarding abortion, and that this debate could continue indefinitely. While I think it is important, I do not have the time to commit to this type of lengthy discussion, nor do I think that this is the best forum to do so. Thank you for sharing your thoughts and thanks for listening to mine.
ReplyDeleteYou're welcome, I appreciated communicating with you on a subject we are both passionate about.
ReplyDeleteSadly you have chosen to bow out without first thinking through and answering my questions.
"Before you judge what reactions are superficial or perhaps go deeper than we realize, what are the reasons these displays of abortion cause you, myself and, others discomfort and even anger leading to violence?"
ReplyDeleteFirst, I'd like to point out that the only side engaging in violence is the anti-choice side; the images discussed (supposed aborted fetuses) are presented BY the anti-choice side to gross people out.
What "angers" me is the fact that the anti-choicers push these graphic, gory images on innocent bystanders and children, regardless on which side those bystanders and children may be on (driving their trucks through residential neighborhoods, parading 10'-tall sings with these images on them all over college campuses when people are just trying to get to class).
As I wrote on Passionate Provider's blog, if you showed me a photo of ANY surgical procedure involving blood and human body parts -- such as my brother's brain tumor removal -- I'd have the same gross-out reaction I would when seeing these "fetus" images. The reaction is not to the act of abortion, but to the blood.
Passionate Provider has thought through and answered your questions. You're choosing to not listen to the answers.