Kaleidoscope 6.2. Special Issue, Hannah Storey, “Softcore Pornography, Speech Act
Theory and the Subordination and Silencing of Women”
Softcore Pornography, Speech Act Theory and the Subordination
and Silencing of Women
HANNAH STOREY
Introduction
Catherine Mackinnon controversially defined pornography as “the graphic sexually explicit
subordination of women through pictures and/or words that entails one or more of the following:
a) Women are presented dehumanized as sexual objects, things or commodities; or
b) Women are presented as sexual objects who enjoy humiliation or pain; or
c) Women are presented as sexual objects experiencing sexual pleasure in rape, incest, or
other sexual assault; or
d) Women are presented as sexual objects tied up or cut up or mutilated or bruised or
physically hurt; or
e) Women are presented in postures or positions of sexual submission, servility, or display; or
f) Women's body parts—including but not limited to vaginas, breasts, or buttocks—are
exhibited such that women are reduced to those parts;
g) Women are presented being penetrated by objects or animals;
h) Women are presented in scenarios of degradation, humiliation, injury, torture, shown as
filthy or inferior, bleeding, bruised or hurt in a context that makes these conditions sexual.”1
There has been much debate about the plausibility of Mackinnon’s definition as it goes much further
than stating that pornography depicts or causes subordination of women, it states that pornography is
subordination of women. In Speech acts and unspeakable acts Rae Langton applies Austin’s speech act
theory to pornographic speech in order to provide a convincing defence of the plausibility of Mackinnon’s
claim.
Having said this, Mackinnon’s definition of pornography covers a wide spectrum of pornographic
depictions of women, from extreme snuff pornography to topless images in ‘lads’ mags’. Even if we are
sympathetic to the idea that extreme pornography may constitute the subordination of women, it is much
more difficult to suppose that the end of the spectrum that contains much more tame depictions of women,
are in the same league. Can these depictions of women that I will henceforth call softcore pornogaphy still
constitute the subordination of women? In order to demonstrate that softcore pornography does indeed
have the ability to subordinate women, I am going to apply to it Langton’s interpretation of Austin’s
framework. I will also discuss the validity of the claim that softcore pornography silences women, as
silenced women would be unable to alleviate their subordination.
In her discussion of silencing, Langton notes “Pornography might legitimate rape, and thus silence
refusal, by doing something other than erotising refusal itself. It may simply leave no space for refusal.”2 In
his critique of Speech acts and unspeakable acts Jacobson adds that “little of the material Mackinnon
deems pornographic – which includes for example, Playboy – actually does this.”3 In fact we shall see that
1
Mackinnon, “Feminism Unmodified: Discourses on life and Law,” p.262.
Langton, “Speech acts and unspeakable acts,” p.324.
3
Jacobson, “Freedom of speech acts? A response to Langton,” p.75.
2
21
Kaleidoscope 6.2. Special Issue, Hannah Storey, “Softcore Pornography, Speech Act
Theory and the Subordination and Silencing of Women”
although Jacobson might be right, in stating that many pornographic representations of women cannot
legitimate rape in the way Langton initially suggests, it is ultimately unimportant. Softcore pornography
differs in its method of subordination and silencing slightly, but the end result remains much the same. In
order to demonstrate this directly I have defined softcore pornography using aspects of Mackinnon’s own
definition, as “pornographic representations of women not produced for the purpose of producing arousal,
including the following:
• Women are presented dehumanized as sexual objects, things or commodities;
• Women are presented in postures or positions of sexual submission, servility, or display;
• Women's body parts—including but not limited to vaginas, breasts, or buttocks—are
exhibited such that women are reduced to those parts;”4
Speech act theory, Subordination and Silencing
Speech Act Theory
In How to do things with words J.L. Austin notes that philosophers before him mainly understood
speech to consist of statements, which could only be used to state facts or to describe some state of affairs.
Austin stepped away from this view by recognising that speech may also be used to do certain actions; for
example one might warn, request, protest or order with their words. Austin held that this sort of speech is
beyond mere expression, that the utterances themselves constitute actions. An example of this Austin
describes is saying, “I do” at a marriage ceremony. This statement is not merely describing getting married
or stating that someone is getting married, the statement “I do” constitutes the marriage itself. Although
these types of speech, which Austin called speech acts, are speech in the sense that they are utterances,
they also constitute actions.
Austin described speech acts as being made up of three separate actions: the locutionary act, the
illocutionary act and the perlocutionary act. Simply speaking these three actions are respectively the
describing, doing and effect of a speech act. The locutionary act is simply the words that make up the
utterance itself, the linguistic element of the speech act. The illocutionary and perlocutionary actions on the
other hand are perhaps more difficult to distinguish. The illocutionary act is the action done “in saying”5 the
speech act. The actions given above, warning, protesting and ordering are all examples of the illocutionary
force of a speech act, as is the act of marrying when saying, “I do”. These actions are not caused by the
speech instead they are the action the speech constitutes in itself. By contrast the perlocutionary act is the
action done “by saying”6 the utterance. Or to put it another way it is the action, or actions, caused by the
speech act. For example when warning of a fire, the perlocutionary actions might include intended effects
such as evacuation of the building, as well as unintended effects such as panic amongst a crowd. All of
these effects are examples of the perlocutionary act of the speech. In contrast the illocutionary action in
this example is the warning itself.
In order to demonstrate this further let us look at the following scenario. Imagine Anna is sitting in a
room with Graham. Anna asks “are you cold?” to which Graham replies that he is. In this example the
words ‘are’, ‘you’ and ‘cold’ make up Anna’s locutionary act, the illocutionary act is Anna asking Graham
and the perlocutionary act (or effect) is Graham’s response. However let us change this situation slightly
such that Graham is now sitting next to an open window. In this scenario Anna’s locutionary statement
remains the same as she still says the phrase “are you cold?” However in asking the same question in a
different scenario Anna clearly intends to request that Graham shut the window. The illocutionary force of
this utterance has therefore changed from a question to a request. The perlocutionary act may also have
changed, Graham may still respond to Anna’s question but he may also recognise Anna’s request and shut
the window. On the other hand he might misunderstand the illocutionary force of her utterance and simply
say "yes" or "no" in response to the question. We will return to these misunderstandings of illocutionary acts
later on.
In the open-window example the same locution in different contexts constitutes different illocutionary
forces. Clearly the context in which a speech act is performed is important. It appears that certain
conditions must be present in order for a speech act to achieve a certain illocutionary force. In contrast to
the open-window example some illocutionary actions require formal conditions in order to be valid.
4
Mackinnon, “Feminism Unmodified: Discourses on life and Law,” p.262.
Austin, “How to do things with words,” p.99.
6
Austin, “How to do things with words,” p.99.
5
22
Kaleidoscope 6.2. Special Issue, Hannah Storey, “Softcore Pornography, Speech Act
Theory and the Subordination and Silencing of Women”
Returning to Austin’s wedding example, when a bride or groom say “I do” during their own wedding
ceremony, it has the illocutionary force of marrying them, yet this is only the case if certain conditions are
satisfied. Most of these conditions are formally set out in the law, for example there must be witnesses and
the officiator must be legally allowed to marry the couple. If the bride and groom were to say, “I do” not
having satisfied these formal conditions, then their words might not constitute marriage at all, even though
the locutionary act remains the same. Austin named these conditions, both formal and otherwise, that are
required to perform speech acts with particular illocutionary forces, felicity conditions. When these felicity
conditions are not fulfilled, the illocutionary force of the speech act might not be successful. If this is the
case the speech act is said to misfire7.
Looking further at the marriage example, if one of the witnesses were to step forward and say, “I do”
during the wedding, their speech would not constitute marrying. Even though the felicity conditions might
have been satisfied by the bride and groom, they would not have been satisfied by the witness. Although
the intention of a speech act is occasionally important, no matter how much the witness intends to marry
with their words a marriage would not be actualised by them, as the witness does not have the authority
required by the speech act. From this example we can see that the authority of the speaker is clearly a very
important felicity condition, as it dictates who may or may not be able to say certain speech acts. Another
example is the speech act “you are under arrest”. This speech act can only have the illocutionary force of
arresting someone if spoken by a person with the correct legal authority. However legal appointment is not
always necessary for securing the correct authority; within the domain of a school for example, a teacher
may hold the necessary authority to perform certain speech acts, whilst a student may not. For instance if a
teacher were to say, “you’re expelled” under the right circumstances, this would have the illocutionary
force of expelling the student. In contrast there are no circumstances under which a student might say
“you’re expelled” and it would have the illocutionary force of expulsion.
It must also be stressed that felicity conditions do not always have to be formal. The felicity
conditions of non-ceremonial speech acts, such as warning, protesting and requesting are not laid down by
law and are therefore much more difficult to determine. If someone was trying to warn us, or request
something from us, it would be arduous to calculate all the felicity conditions required for a warning or
request, and then to see if they had been satisfied by the speech act. In day-to-day life we have to use our
intuition and make educated guesses about what someone may be trying to do with their words. We can
only look at what conditions we do know have been satisfied and calculate what the illocutionary force may
be from them, or perhaps in retrospect we may look at the effects of the speech act instead. In the openwindow scenario the correct uptake, that Anna is in fact asking Graham to close the window by saying “are
you cold?” might be secured in the audience (Graham), because he knows that at least one condition for
her speech to have this illocutionary force, has been satisfied, the window is open. In this instance this
condition might be enough for Graham to assume the illocutionary force of Anna’s speech.
Some final aspects of a speech act that must be acknowledged here are the tone and body language
of the speaker. Often these can impact both the intended illocutionary force and the uptake of the hearer. If
for example Anna were to say “are you cold?” in a sarcastic manner, it might be because she intends her
illocutionary action to be mocking, instead of questioning or requesting, as it is above. Alternatively if
Graham were to take her speech to be sarcastic, even though Anna intended it to be sincere, then the
illocutionary force of her speech might misfire, as Graham would not have recognised her true intention.
Speech Acts of Subordination
The idea that speech acts might cause subordination is familiar. For example the laws of apartheid
that removed certain powers and rights from black citizens of South Africa, caused subordination of those
citizens. Within the Austinian framework, this is a case in which the perlocutionary effect of a speech act is
subordination. Speech acts of subordination however, are not just speech acts with the perlocutionary
effect of causing subordination, but those that have the illocutionary force of subordination also.
Subordinating speech acts may also represent or cause subordination to happen, but most importantly they
constitute subordination itself.
So how might a speech act have the illocutionary force of subordination? Langton uses the example
of the South African laws of apartheid to demonstrate this. When a legislator utters the phrase “black
people are not permitted to vote” they are not only causing subordination of black people in a
perlocutionary sense, but in an illocutionary sense also. In saying the utterance the legislator is doing the
following: they are ranking black people as inferior to white people, they are legitimising discriminatory
7
Hornsby, Langton, “Free Speech and Illocution,” p.26
23
Kaleidoscope 6.2. Special Issue, Hannah Storey, “Softcore Pornography, Speech Act
Theory and the Subordination and Silencing of Women”
behaviour towards them and they are also depriving them of certain rights and powers, specifically the
power to vote. These three aspects of a subordinating illocution: ranking as inferior, legitimising
discrimination against and depriving of certain rights and/or powers I will, as Langton does, use as a
paradigm for speech acts of subordination throughout this dissertation. However it must be noted that
these aspects may well not cover all the felicity conditions required for a speech act of subordination.
It is not just the content of a speech act that is important but also the authority of the speaker. If as
opposed to a legislator, the speaker of the speech act “black people are not permitted to vote” was an
ordinary member of society, with no notable sphere of influence, their speech may not constitute
subordination. Even though the locution remains the same and the speaker may still intend to subordinate
black people, their speech does not satisfy the conditions for a speech act of subordination that we have
laid out. It does not rank persons as inferior, legitimise discrimination against them or deprive them of any
powers because the speaker does not hold the relevant authority to do so. The speech has therefore
misfired.
Having said this, what type or amount of authority is required in order to subordinate? Green argues
that both ‘general perceived legitimacy’ and ‘general efficacy’ are necessary in order for a speech act to
have the illocutionary force of subordination.8 In other words the norms a speaker prescribes must be
generally thought to be legitimate, as well as there being significant contact between those that endorse the
norms, and those that those norms attempt to subordinate. Langton argues, I believe convincingly, that
generally perceived legitimacy is not required in order to subordinate, only general efficacy. She argues that
if the norms prescribed by the speaker are not generally perceived to be valid, but they are perceived to be
legitimate by some then the norms prescribed may constitute subordinate. Assuming those persons are
both numerous and powerful enough, as well as there being significant contact between them and those
that are the focus of the subordinating speech. For further explanation let us examine Green’s example. If
the Catholic Church prescribes to their followers that homosexuality is a sin, then it would be reasonable to
assume that the Church subordinates Mick, a homosexual Catholic. However Mick’s neighbour Max is also
homosexual but he is Jewish, is Max also subordinated? Green argues that even though it may have other
effects on Max, such as making him feel anxious or ashamed, he is not subordinated as the Church only
boasts a minority following. It would only constitute subordination if the Church’s speech were both
generally accepted and generally efficacious. However even if the speech of the Church is not generally
perceived to be legitimate, Langton argues that if those that accept the Church’s authority hold significant
positions of authority over Max, Max may still be subordinated. Langton goes further than this to argue that
even general efficacy is not required in order to subordinate, local efficacy with suffice. For example it
would be rational to believe that a black person living in an area controlled by a small yet powerful gang,
that endorsed the subordination of black people, was subordinated, even if the gang only controlled a small
area. Just because there are other places in which they would not be subordinated, it does not stop it being
the case that they are subordinated. To say so would be to endorse that no person is subordinated, if
somewhere else someone like them is not.
Although an important condition on speech acts of subordination authority is not always enough for
one’s speech to constitute subordination. Clearly a legislator has enough authority to subordinate, as
demonstrated by the apartheid laws. Having said this, even though the legislator has this authority, it is
conceivable that their words might fall short of having the illocutionary force of subordination. In a social
climate where racism is non-existent the legislator’s words would be unlikely to ultimately have the
perlocutionary effect of subordination. The people would simply not recognise the illocutionary intentions of
the legislator. Even though the legislator does have the power to say “black people are not permitted to be
in certain places” and make it so legally, other influences might be strong enough to undermine the
legislator’s legitimising of discrimination. For example during the prohibition in the USA, alcohol was
banned yet still widely drunk by the general public. Although the government had the authority to legally
ban alcohol and therefore endorse a negative attitude of it, this did not cause the general public to believe
that alcohol was wrong or stop them consuming it. In the same way, an authoritative voice may attempt to
subordinate, without their speech ultimately causing subordination.
Silenced Speech and Speech Acts that Silence
By looking at the Austinian framework of speech acts, it is clear that speech can be silenced at
several levels. Generally when thinking about being silenced we think of someone who is unable to speak,
or is prevented from speaking e.g. through a gagging order. This would be an example of locutionary
8
Green, “Pornographizing, Subordination, and Silencing”
24
Kaleidoscope 6.2. Special Issue, Hannah Storey, “Softcore Pornography, Speech Act
Theory and the Subordination and Silencing of Women”
silencing, and there are two distinct ways someone can be subject to locutionary silencing. Firstly by being
physically prevented from speaking; this could be caused by being put into prison for example. Secondly a
person could be silenced in the locutionary sense by social constructs that cause the speaker to wish not to
speak at all, or only to speak in a certain way. This could be caused by a threat of violence for example.
Another type of silencing would be perlocutionary silencing. However this is not something that will occupy
much of this dissertation as unless it occurs systematically, nobody has the right to the outcome of their
words always being as they desire.
As we have seen, speech is not only about expressing oneself, it can also be used to do things.
When speech is silenced at the illocutionary level we can think of it as the speaker being unable to do what
they want with their words. In the same way that if I was prevented from doing a certain action I would be
disempowered, silencing of the illocutionary act disempowers the speaker. In Disempowered Speech,
Jennifer Hornsby introduces the idea of reciprocity to speech acts. She posits that speech acts and
audience uptake are intrinsically linked, that even if one is free to speak as they desire, they may be unable
to do as they wish with their words if there is no uptake on the part of the audience. An example of this is a
political candidate who has been widely discredited during their campaign. The candidate is allowed to
continue making public addresses, so they are not silenced in a locutionary sense, but their speech has
been severely undermined and tainted. The audience of the candidate’s speeches therefore may not
recognise their intended illocution. Or to put it another way, they may not recognise what the candidate is
trying to with their words, and the illocutionary force of their speech act has therefore failed.
Hornsby argues that reciprocity is essential for securing a “successful illocutionary act” 9. She gives
the following example: imagine an actor witnesses a fire breaking out backstage in the theatre, they run
onto stage intended to warn the audience of the danger by shouting “fire!“ The audience however are not
warned, as they believe the actor is still in character, and that the warning is part of the play. There is no
uptake on the part of the audience. Although they have heard the actor’s locution, the illocutionary act of
warning has failed. The actor has done everything in their power to produce a successful speech act but
due to the circumstances the illocutionary act of warning is simply not possible for them. In this way the
actor has been silenced by the context of their speech.
The illocutionary and perlocutionary force of certain utterances can also be affected by the social
conditions of a time period. To put it simply “what others have done with words in the past restricts what
someone can do with them now.”10 Essentially the changing social constructs around certain words may
prevent them from being used in contexts where they were once used. For example teenage slang terms
such as ‘bad’, ‘wicked’ or ‘sick’ have taken on completely new connotations over the last few decades.
Although all three of these words have previously had negative meanings, they may now be unspeakable to
teenagers in this way, as teenagers view them to be positive words. This would mean that uptake had not
been secured in the audience and the illocutionary force would misfire. If there was no alternative way in
which the speaker might be able to say what they intended, then we may consider them to be silenced.
In his critique of Langton’s Speech acts and unspeakable acts, Jacobson objects to the importance
Langton places upon uptake. He argues that if uptake were necessary in order to perform a successful
speech act then it would have an indefensible conclusion. Jacobson argues that if uptake were necessary
then if it were not secured in a man when a woman tries to protest his sexual advances, her protest would
not be successful and therefore the proceeding sexual advances would not constitute rape. The idea of
consent could be a subject for entirely different dissertation so I will only be able to briefly discuss this here,
but there are two responses which I believe to be successful when faced with Jacobson’s objection. The
first of which, put forward by McGowan, Adelman, Helmers and Stolzenberg11 is to separate the
illocutionary element from the communicative element of speech. They demonstrate this with the following
example. If Ben were offered coffee by a waiter and he says “yes” intending to accept, but the waiter does
not hear him, Ben has still accepted the coffee, although his acceptance has not been communicated to
the waiter. Without communication we can say that Ben’s speech has misfired, but it would be inaccurate
to say that he has not accepted at all. The same is true in Jacobson’s example. If a woman were to say
“no” to sex, even if her “no” was not heard, or not recognised as “no” she would still have refused. The
woman has protested, but she has failed to successfully communicate her protest. As she has indeed
protested it would be unreasonable to suggest she had not have been raped.
9
Hornsby, “Disempowered speech,” p.134.
Hornsby, “Disempowered speech,” p.136.
11
Mcgowan, Adelman, Helmers, Stolzenberg, “A Partial Defense of Illocutionary Silencing”.
10
25
Kaleidoscope 6.2. Special Issue, Hannah Storey, “Softcore Pornography, Speech Act
Theory and the Subordination and Silencing of Women”
Alternatively one might argue that even if her refusal was to fail due to uptake failure, unless it failed
because there was a meaning switch from “no” to “yes”, it would be irrational for the hearer to assume that
there was consent in the absence of refusal. After all consent is not the absence of no, it is the presence of
yes. McGowan further argues that one is no less culpable for their own actions if it has been in part caused
by outside influences, even if they were to put themselves in the way of those outside influences willingly.
For example if one was to listen to the radio in the car and was therefore distracted by some shocking
news, this would not reduce their culpability if they were to crash.12
In order to further Jacobson’s argument, Bird argues that rape in the absence of refusal is less
objectionable than rape with refusal.13 He may be right that the culpability of the individual perpetrator has
been lessened, however surely the whole situation is therefore far more objectionable. The woman is still
raped, as she has done everything in her power to protest, but something has made her protest
unrecognisable. Whatever has caused this illocutionary silencing is therefore surely incredibly dangerous.
The ability to protest sexual advances is an extremely important one, and therefore the external forces that
may silence this ability, surely need to be undermined in some way.
Softcore Pornography and the Subordination of Women
Having explored how an action may constitute subordination, I am now going to turn to the question
of whether or not softcore pornography may itself be considered subordination. Langton explains that
speech acts of subordination must have both an exercitive and a verdictive illocutionary force.14 An
example of an exercitive illocution is a ceremonial speech act such as naming a ship. In saying “I name
this ship the Queen Elizabeth” the appointed person is making it the case that the ship is called the Queen
Elizabeth. In other words an exercitive illocution changes the world to fit what it says. A verdictive illocution
on the other hand is a judgement and can be false. If a verdictive illocution is said by somebody with
appropriate authority however, it may have the force of an exercitive illocution. An example is the speech
act “the ball is out”. When this speech act is spoken by a member of the crowd at a tennis match, it is
purely a judgement and has no effect on the score. However when the same locution is spoken by the
umpire of the game, although it remains a judgement it is taken to be true. Authoritative voices can
therefore make their verdictive speech count as if it were exercitive.
An authoritative verdictive illocution can also in part rearrange the world to make its judgements
actually so. Even if originally false, an illocution such as “Anna has a low IQ score” can over time become
true, if for example Anna’s teachers accepted the original illocution and she is therefore unfairly
neglected.15 By examining the subordinating speech acts of apartheid, we have seen that for a speech acts
illocutionary force to constitute subordination, it would need to satisfy the verdictive illocution of ranking
persons as inferior and the exercitive illocutions of legitimising discriminatory behaviour towards them, and
depriving them of certain rights and powers. Clearly the speech act must also be spoken by a person, or
group of persons, with relevant authority.
Langton argues that it is plausible that pornography’s illocutionary force fulfils each of these
conditions; it could rank women as sexual objects, it could legitimise sexist attitudes and it could deprive
women of important powers, namely the power to refuse sex16. She further argues that although
pornography is generally considered ‘low-speech’, within the domain of sexual speech it may well hold the
relevant authority to subordinate women. However the purpose of this dissertation is to consider softcore
pornography such as, but not limited to: the Sun newspaper’s page 3, sexually explicit music videos and
sexually suggestive advertisements. When we make this distinction, does softcore pornography also
constitute subordination of women?
Let us consider the first of the three aspects of a subordinating speech act, the illocutionary force of
ranking women as inferior. Mainstream pornography could be said to rank women as inferior by removing
their sense of autonomy. Pornographic depictions of women tend to show them being performed upon,
having acts done to them as opposed to the women being in control. Softcore pornography on the other
hand does not generally show women being acted upon in this way, as there is rarely a man, or a malerepresentative, included in the depictions. However this does not mean that softcore pornography does not
12
McGowan, Maitra, “On Silencing, Rape, and Responsibility”.
Bird, “Illocutionary silencing”.
14
Langton, “Subordination, Silence and Pornography’s authority”.
15
Langton, “Subordination, Silence and Pornography’s authority”.
16
Langton, “Speech acts and unspeakable acts”.
13
26
Kaleidoscope 6.2. Special Issue, Hannah Storey, “Softcore Pornography, Speech Act
Theory and the Subordination and Silencing of Women”
rank women as inferior. As well as depicting women, or parts of women, in a sexually suggestive manner,
softcore pornography often frames women in such a way that the viewer is in a position of power over them.
This is done in a variety of ways including camera angles, facial expressions, patronising taglines, dress,
such as school uniforms and props, such as lollypops. Most obviously this power structure is constructed
by depicting women partially or fully nude whilst the viewer, who is often intended to be male, remains fully
clothed. Occasionally advertisers even go so far as to literally reduce women to objects. Therefore even
though depictions of women that fall under the category of softcore pornography do not often directly
depict women as sexual objects being acted upon, the women pictured (or described) still do not have a
sense of autonomy, and as such they are ranked as inferior.
Let us now go on to consider the second condition of a speech act of subordination. Does softcore
pornography legitimise discrimination of women? Our instinct might be to say that it does not because
unlike other categories of pornography, it does not directly depict discrimination of women. Whereas more
extreme pornography might depict and glorify, violent or abusive behaviour towards women, softcore
pornography is generally as its name suggests, softer. Because of this we might say that it does not have
the illocutionary force of endorsing discriminatory behaviour, however legitimising discrimination does not
require direct representation of discrimination at all. For instance, in December 2013, the British National
Party (BNP) released a Christmas card with the greeting “wishing you a white Christmas”17. Although this
would be a perfectly innocent greeting on most Christmas cards, on this card the phrase was not intended
to reference snow, instead it was used to allude to the absence of non-Caucasians. The BNP was not
directly endorsing or inciting racist behaviour here, but they could still be seen to be legitimising it.
Although there was no direct endorsement of racist discrimination, in terms of inciting violent or abusive
behaviour, there certainly is an underlying tone of racism. If promoted by an authoritative voice, depictions
like this may well serve to legitimise discrimination. It is plausibly the same with softcore pornography. If it
has an underlying tone of sexism and it is authoritative, then it might also legitimise discrimination of
women. We have already seen that often softcore pornography frames women as objects for ‘the male
gaze’; perhaps this is the underlying tone of sexism.
The law, which we can perhaps think of the ultimate example of authority, does not legitimise sexist
attitudes towards women. In fact the law might be said to do the complete opposite, as it is illegal both to
discriminate based on gender in the workplace, and to sexually harass women. And yet both of these
examples of discriminatory behaviour still occur regularly.18 It is therefore conceivable that another
authoritative voice might be combating the view of women that the law propagates. Perhaps softcore
pornography is this authoritative voice. If as we have seen, it is the case that softcore pornography depicts
women as objects and as inferior to men, then perhaps it is also indirectly legitimising discrimination of
women.
The final condition a speech act requires in order to be considered a speech act of subordination is
that it must deprive women of rights and/or powers. It is tough to imagine that softcore pornography can
deprive women of any real rights or powers. In the instance of the racist legislator in the first chapter, black
people are deprived of a very important legal right, the right to vote. Clearly softcore pornography removes
no legal rights, or power to exert those rights, yet there is one way in which we can see how it may deprive
women of some other, non-legal powers. Research has shown that regular exposure to sexualised images
of women in the media leads to young girls ‘self-objectifying’19 and both girls, boys, women and men
becoming more accepting of stereotyped ideas about women20. Further to this there have been studies that
suggest young girl’s work is negatively affected by concerns about their appearance21. The same
experiment for boys showed no such negative effect.
Softcore pornography differs from mainstream pornography in a way that is very important here.
Whereas mainstream pornography is often hidden away and only sought out as “masturbation material,”22
softcore pornography is used in everything from newspapers advertisements to music videos and is
therefore seen regularly without being sought out purposefully. Although there has been some debate
17
BNP Christmas Card, https://www.bnp.org.uk/news/national/wishing-you-white-christmas.
Opportunity Now, report finds 52% of women surveyed had experienced non-sexual harassment
and 12% had experienced sexual harassment in the workplace.
19
American Psychological Association, Report of the APA Task Force on the Sexualization of Girls.
20
American Psychological Association, Report of the APA Task Force on the Sexualization of Girls.
21
American Psychological Association, Report of the APA Task Force on the Sexualization of Girls.
22
Mackinnon, “Only Words,” p.17
18
27
Kaleidoscope 6.2. Special Issue, Hannah Storey, “Softcore Pornography, Speech Act
Theory and the Subordination and Silencing of Women”
about how much mainstream pornography young people are now viewing23 we can assume that they are
viewing a high amount of softcore pornography, after all a lot of music videos for example are aimed at a
young audience. If as the research shows, softcore pornography is partly responsible for self-objectification
and an increased acceptance of sexist stereotypes then perhaps it is also removing the power of women to
define themselves outside of those stereotypes and even perhaps the power to move forward in the
workplace.
Now let us look at an example of softcore pornography in order to evaluate if it exhibits the three
aspects of a subordinating speech act. I have already briefly mentioned the Sun’s page 3 but in more
detail, page 3 of the Sun (and other newspapers that have copied the style) is taken up with a daily
photograph of a topless female model. The rest of the paper is devoted to a variety of topical news stories,
as well as celebrity gossip and sport reporting. Although the newspaper presents a variety of content, page
3 has been noted to often be the most prominent image of a woman in the newspaper24. Although not as
sexually suggestive as some examples of softcore pornography, page 3 could still be seen to rank women
as sexual objects. One reason for this is that it is only women that are depicted topless on page 3. In
contrast men in the newspaper are generally represented fully clothed, powerful and active. For example a
large section of the paper is dedicated to sport and the men here are represented for their achievements
and skill. When we contrast this with the most prominent image of a woman in the newspaper, she is there
purely to be looked at and is therefore reduced only to her body. Previously the Sun had a ‘news in briefs’
quotation next to the photograph, which consisted of an intelligent comment, supposedly from the pictured
woman, about a current news story covered in the newspaper. Unfortunately this did not give the pictured
woman a voice, it only served to further undermine her as the placement of the quotation was clearly
intended to be a humourous comment on the unlikeness of the woman having said what was attributed to
her.
Hence the Sun may rank women as inferior, but does it also legitimise discrimination against them?
The Sun is not the low-speech many consider pornography to be, it is a newspaper that reports real news,
albeit amongst other non-news stories. By placing an image that ranks women as inferior regularly next to
genuine news stories, could it not be said that the Sun is therefore giving this depiction of women
legitimacy? The Sun is also widely circulated in the UK.25 As we have seen regular exposure to sexualised
images of women in the media can lead to an increased acceptance of sexist ideas about women.26 If page
3 is a source of this increased acceptance for some, then it is plausible that it is legitimising sexist ideas
about women. It is not legitimising discrimination in an extreme sense, such as violent or abusive behaviour
towards women, but it might be legitimising less extreme, but still harmful discrimination of women, such
as sexist discrimination in the workplace.
Lastly does page 3 deprive women of any rights or powers? As we have seen if page 3, as an
example of sexualised images of women, is regularly viewed by young people then it might contribute to a
social climate in which women do not have all the opportunity to define themselves outside of sexist
stereotypes. It would be difficult to prove that there is a direct link between page 3 and these effects, and it
is certainly not for me to discuss here, however it does show that it is at least plausible that page 3 in some
way removes powers from women.
We have therefore seen that it is plausible that softcore pornography ranks women as inferior,
legitimises discrimination against them and deprives them of important powers. However, even if we are
convinced that the illocutionary force of softcore pornography satisfies all these conditions, without holding
the relevant authority, it still cannot possibly subordinate. Although softcore pornography is arguably not an
authoritative voice, in the way that governments are, it is often distributed and endorsed by powerful
companies. Influential corporations from every imaginable arena including Hollywood film studios, high
circulation newspapers, recording labels, and clothing companies regularly exploit softcore pornography in
their productions and advertisements. Collectively these companies control many of our influences and
therefore hold significant power to affect the way in which we view the world. Moreover, because softcore
pornography is used as a technique by so many, it is viewed frequently in the western world. In contrast to
mainstream pornography we do not even need to seek it out much of the time, in fact it is incredibly
difficult to avoid. This frequency of viewings does not itself give softcore pornography authority, but if we
23
BBC, “BBC Three survey reveals one in four young people first view porn at age 12 or under”.
Holmes, lucy-Anne, “No More Page 3”.
25
ABC, Circulation figures of the Sun are 2,213,659 (the highest UK daily newspaper),
http://www.theguardian.com/media/table/2014/mar/14/abcs-national-newspapers
26
American Psychological Association, Report of the APA Task Force on the Sexualization of Girls.
24
28
Kaleidoscope 6.2. Special Issue, Hannah Storey, “Softcore Pornography, Speech Act
Theory and the Subordination and Silencing of Women”
couple this with the authority of the companies promoting it, it is certainly plausible that softcore
pornography holds the relevant authority to subordinate.
Now we have seen how softcore pornography might directly constitute a speech act of subordination
there is another important way it might indirectly be so. Softcore might also constitute subordination of
women by alluding to pornography itself. Generally softcore pornography differs from mainstream
pornography because it is used to sell a product in some way. Now why is using these sexualised images of
women so popular and successful in advertising? One answer may be that the advertisements are trying to
rouse some emotion in the viewer27. Generally the emotion the advertisers are trying to incite is excitement.
If the advertisement causes the viewer to associate their product with a rush of excitement, then they might
be more likely to buy the product.28 On the other hand an advertisement for a charity might encourage a
feeling of sadness in the viewer, in order to promote donating to their cause. Relating this to softcore
pornography, it could be said that advertisers use softcore pornography in such a way as to allude to
pornography itself, in order to remind viewers of a time when they may have viewed pornography in the
past and felt excitement. Now if this is the case, then perhaps it is likely that softcore pornography also
promotes other aspects of mainstream pornography.
An example of this allusion to pornography is clear in Rihanna’s music video ‘pour it up’29. In the
video Rihanna and her dancers are shown performing sexually suggestive dance moves including
twerking30 and pole dancing. In addition to this, with the exception of Rihanna, all the women’s faces are
either hidden by lighting or by camera angles. The women are therefore only depicted as bodies, or parts of
bodies. Although Rihanna is originally shown in a position of power in the video, sitting on a throne with the
camera facing up towards her, she is firstly undermined by her sexualised clothing and then even more so
because although she starts the videos sitting on a throne, throughout the video she slowly transfers to the
floor, further undermining her once held authority. The allusion to pornography is easy to see in this video.
Not only is the choreography suggestive of pornography and the dancers represented as objects but also
the choice of pole dancing directly alludes to a pornographic industry. Rihanna has chosen to be depicted
in this way for a reason, and ultimately it is likely that the reason is to incite excitement in the viewer so that
they might buy her music.
In order to demonstrate how an allusion to pornography might also promote other aspects of
pornography let us look at an example. The Fast & Furious franchise is well known for its adrenaline filled
and dangerous high-speed chases. Studies have shown that “high-speed (car) chases in movies … have
built up a cachet of excitement and glamour around speeding”31 therefore the Fast & Furious franchise
could be seen to be endorsing speeding, whether intentionally or otherwise, and perhaps it is therefore
legitimising speeding. In order to sell its new car, the Dart, Dodge cars developed a television advertisement
that used footage of the Dart interspersed with short segments of the film Fast & Furious 632. By alluding to
the Fast & Furious franchise in its advertisement, it is reasonable to believe that Dodge is indirectly
endorsing that which the film itself promotes. If the film does indeed promote and legitimise speeding then
is it not possible that Dodge is also indirectly promoting and legitimising speeding?
If we can agree that Dodge cars are legitimising speeding through indirectly endorsing the Fast &
Furious franchise, and that softcore pornography alludes to pornography, then it is plausible that softcore
pornography also promotes and legitimises that which pornography promotes and legitimises. The
discussion of whether or not pornography itself constitutes subordination is not one for me to discuss here,
but Langton has shown that it is at the very least plausible that pornography depicts, causes and
constitutes subordination. If pornography is subordination and therefore ranks women as inferior,
legitimises discrimination against them and deprives them of rights and/or powers, then by virtue of its
27
Donovan, P, “Study Finds Marked Rise in Intensely Sexualized Images of Women, not Men,”
http://www.buffalo.edu/news/releases/2011/08/12769.html
28
Holbrook, O'Shaughnessy, “The Role of Emotion in Advertising”.
29
Rihanna, “Pour it up” music video, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ehcVomMexkY
30
Twerk: Dance to popular music in a sexually provocative manner involving thrusting hip
movements and a low, squatting stance, Oxford dictionary,
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/twerk
31
Motoring News, “Computer games ‘encourage speeding,’”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/news/5250094/Computer-games-encourage-speeding.html
32
Dodge Cars, “Fast and Furiour 6 Dodge Dart Commercial”,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qKWTaWyGwko
29
Kaleidoscope 6.2. Special Issue, Hannah Storey, “Softcore Pornography, Speech Act
Theory and the Subordination and Silencing of Women”
allusion to pornography we have seen that it is possible that softcore pornography also constitutes
subordination of women.
Undoubtedly there are some disagreements about the illocutionary force of softcore pornography,
but perhaps the above goes some way towards clarifying that subordination of women is at least a
possibility. However, as we have only laid out an estimate of the conditions of a speech act of
subordination, based on the subordinating speech acts of apartheid, it is possible that there are conditions
that are required that we have not considered, and therefore it is possible that we do not know if all
conditions have been satisfied. In the absence of clarity about which felicity conditions have been satisfied,
Langton suggests three ways of determining the illocutionary force.33 Separately each method is too weak to
be conclusive but together they may give a convincing account of the illocutionary force of softcore
pornography and show that it has a strong claim to being subordination. These three methods, from
weakest to strongest according to Langton, are as follows: working backwards from the effects of the
speech act, looking at the uptake of the speech act in the audience and finally, looking at which felicity
conditions have been satisfied by the speech act.
Let us use the following as an example to explore how we might determine the illocutionary force of a
speech act. The film Let Him Have it34 represents the true story of Derek Bentley who was hanged for
murder. Bentley did not directly commit murder, but he was convicted on the basis that he said, “let him
have it, Chris” to his fellow gunman, who then proceeded to shoot dead PC Sidney Miles. In saying “Let
him have it, Chris” Bentley could have been executing many different speech acts. His legal defence was
based around the idea that he was actually advising that Chris give the gun to Miles, however the
prosecution argued that he was in fact ordering Chris to shoot Miles.
Starting with the method which Langton views as the weakest way of determining the illocutionary
force, let us look at the perlocutionary effects of Bentley’s speech act. The perlocutionary effect of Bentley’s
speech is that Chris shoots Miles. Working just from this small amount of information it seems likely that
Bentley in fact ordered Chris to shoot Miles. However this is a fairly weak method as many different
illocutionary acts may explain the same perlocutionary effects. Bentley may have intended to advise Chris
to hand over the gun and his speech simply misfired. Moreover in reality it is not the case that there are
only two options for the meanings of Bentley’s speech act. Even if we take it that his words did not misfire,
many illocutions could end with the perlocutionary effect of Chris shooting Miles, including for example
Bentley merely advising that Chris shoot Miles. Although not a favourable outcome this would still absolve
Bentley of the responsibility of the murder.
As the outcome of Bentley’s speech is the Chris shot Miles, we know that there are only two things
that could have occurred; either Bentley ordered Chris to shoot or Chris, albeit mistakenly, took Bentley to
be ordering him. To relate this back to the topic at hand we can see that if women are indeed
subordinated, then either there has been an act of subordination, or perhaps people have only mistakenly
believed there has been an act of subordination. If softcore pornography is attributed to subordination of
women then we can assume it either does constitute subordination, or at the very least some take it to
constitute subordination. Although we cannot actually determine if softcore pornography is subordination of
women only from its perlocutionary effects, if it has been mistakenly thought to constitute subordination
and this has ultimately caused the subordination of women, whether or not it actually is subordination
might well be semantics.
The next method we can use to determine the illocutionary force of softcore pornography is to
examine the uptake of the audience. Returning to the Let him have it example clearly the uptake in the
audience, Chris, is that Bentley has ordered him to shoot Miles. If this is all we know then we might assume
that Bentley did order Chris. However this is not conclusive as it is possible that Chris misunderstood what
Bentley was trying to do with his words. Just because Chris believed Bentley was ordering him, this does
not make it the case that he was ordering him to shoot Miles. In this example there is only one person in
which the speaker needs to secure the correct uptake. Softcore pornography on the other hand is viewed
by millions of people. Clearly the uptake for viewers of softcore pornography is not always that it constitutes
subordination, however there is an ever-increasing number of people supporting campaigns such as ‘no
more page 3’ and ‘lose the lads mags’ who do take it to be subordination of women. Then again there are
plenty of people for which the uptake is that softcore pornography is entertainment, not subordination, and
plenty more in which the uptake is only indifference. So whose uptake should we ultimately listen to, if
anyone’s? Perhaps we should listen to those that consider themselves to be subordinated by it, as they may
33
34
Langton, “Speech acts and unspeakable acts”.
Medak, “Let him have it” .
30
Kaleidoscope 6.2. Special Issue, Hannah Storey, “Softcore Pornography, Speech Act
Theory and the Subordination and Silencing of Women”
have a clearer understanding of how this could be the case. Perhaps we should listen to those that are the
intended audience; however this is extremely difficult to pin down as softcore pornography is so widely
used in the media. It is directed both at men and women and it therefore difficult to evaluate as a whole.
Realistically all we can learn from examining the uptake of viewers of softcore pornography is that it might
constitute subordination of women. As the uptake that it is subordination is secured in some of the
audience we know it remains a possibility.
The final and strongest technique for establishing the illocutionary force of a speech act is to look at
which felicity conditions have been satisfied by it. In the Let him have it example, if we know that Bentley’s
speech has satisfied most of the felicity conditions that would be required for his speech to have the force
of an order, and we couple this with knowledge of both the perlocutionary effects of his speech and the
uptake secured by his speech, then it would be reasonable to suppose that his speech was indeed an
order. For example if Bentley did not hold significant authority over Chris, his speech would not have
satisfied this most important felicity condition. In other words without authority Bentley would be unable to
order Chris. If this is the case then we know that regardless of any other information, Bentley could not
have ordered Chris. As we have already discussed, softcore pornography could satisfy the three very
important conditions of a speech act of subordination; it is plausible that it ranks women as inferior,
legitimises discrimination against them and deprives them of some powers. We have also seen that softcore
pornography satisfies the most important condition of all, being an authoritative voice. Therefore although
none of these techniques perfectly determine the illocutionary force of softcore pornography, when
combined we can see that it is certainly plausible that softcore pornography is the subordination of women.
Softcore pornography and the Silencing of Women
In order to combat their subordination, the subordinated persons must be able to contest the
authority of the subordinating speakers. This can be done in many ways however if those persons have also
been silenced, then they would be unable to successfully protest their subordination. We have seen that
softcore pornography may well constitute subordination of women, now we are going to investigate whether
or not it also silences women and if so in what way are women silenced.
Let us first focus on what, in Austinian terms is ‘locutionary failure’, or put simply, an inability to form
words in order to speak. As we have seen locutionary silencing can occur in two important ways: either the
speaker is prevented from speaking or the speaker chooses not to speak at all, or to speak differently. This
second type is only an example of locutionary silencing if the speaker may otherwise have spoken or
spoken differently. Although there are no physical barriers to stop them speaking, there may be societal
norms that cause them only to speak in a certain way, or not at all. Conversely the first type of locutionary
silencing is caused by the speaker being physically removed from society or being ordered to remain silent
by law e.g. through a gagging order. Clearly women are not systematically silenced in this way in the
western world, as there are no laws preventing women as a group from speaking, even though an individual
woman may be prevented. However the second type of locutionary silencing is more subtle and worth
investigating; if women existed in a world in which, although there were no legal barriers preventing them
from speaking, they did not believe they would be listened to or understood if they were to speak out, and
therefore did not speak out, then this would be a form of locutionary silencing. If softcore pornography was
proven to cause or contribute to this, then it could be said that softcore pornography silences women in a
locutionary sense.
An example of the second sort of locutionary silencing occurred during the time period just after the
racist laws in the USA, such as laws on racial segregation, were repealed. Although the US government has
unquestionable authority and in taking away these laws, it went some way towards undermining its previous
silencing of African-Americans in the USA, equality did not occur over night. In many ways the AfricanAmerican community remained silenced as they held very few positions of power and had access to very
few forums where they might make their views heard, outside of their own community. One might argue
that nobody has a right to hold a position of this type. If for example, an individual does not qualify for one
of these roles, they should not receive it simply to prevent them from being silenced individually, as it would
be absurd to say that everyone should be allowed this sort of role. However, if no African-Americans, or
very few, were allowed roles in which they could express their points of view, then we may say they are
collectively silenced. The law had changed to allow African-Americans the opportunity to hold these
positions and therefore express their views, and yet very few actually held these roles at this time. Why
might this be the case? We must remember that the law is only one authoritative voice amongst many.
Although the US government had rescinded its subordinating speech, others did not. Many other voices of
31
Kaleidoscope 6.2. Special Issue, Hannah Storey, “Softcore Pornography, Speech Act
Theory and the Subordination and Silencing of Women”
authority continued their subordination of African-Americans. These subordinating speech acts included
the illocutionary force of ranking African-Americans as inferior to white Americans, amongst other things.
Being ranked as inferior is likely to lead to both the subordinated not applying for the job roles in the first
place, as they might believe themselves inferior to the competition and perhaps not worthy of the job, as
well as employers not giving them the roles. This might go some way towards explaining the discrepancy in
the amount of African-Americans holding the positions in the time past the legal barriers being dissolved.
In a similar way to the example of the African-American community in the USA, women may still
remain silenced in the locutionary sense. Although women have been equal in law for some time, there are
still statistically fairly few women currently taking up job roles that involve public speaking, such as being
an MP or being a comedian. Similarly few women are represented on topical chat shows or opinion panels,
such as the BBC’s Question Time.35 This is simply not representative of women, who make up roughly 50%
36
of the population. We have already seen that softcore pornography may well subordinate, even in the
absence of legal subordination of women. If this is the case then by definition it also ranks women as
inferior to men. Perhaps as with the above example, many women do not take up these roles because this
ranking has caused their ability to be undermined.
As well as seeing that softcore pornography may rank women as inferior to men, we have also seen
that it may rank women as sex objects. In fact as I have already mentioned research shows that regular
viewing of sexualised images of women may lead to a person of any gender being more likely to believe
sexist ideas about women37. This would mean that softcore pornography provides some sort of guidelines
on women’s role within society. If women were believed to be objects, then they would have no place
speaking in a public forum. This might not only cause women not to be hired in these roles, but also them
not to strive for them in the first place. This is all speculation of course but it perhaps goes some of the way
to explaining the statistical disparity in female versus male uptake of public speaking roles.
A clearer cut example of locutionary silencing is street harassment, more specifically when women
are harassed in the street but do not speak out and protest the treatment, even if they may wish to. The
Everyday Sexism Project shows that for many women street harassment is a regular occurrence, and often
women do not protest it at the time. One example from Rachel, a contributor to the project, is as follows: “a
group of construction workers were staring me up and down as I approached them. Feeling uncomfortable,
I sped up my walking pace, hoping to pass them quickly. One of the men stepped in front of me, stopping
me, saying ‘Where's that smile? I know you ain't (sic) hidin' that pretty smile from me.’ He didn't move; I
had to shove past him in the narrow walkway to get away from him and the rest of the men who stood by,
laughing.”38 Rachel clearly wished to protest this harassment but didn’t at the time and is therefore in a
way silenced. This is one example of many instances like this shared by the project. If women have
internalised the idea that they are sex objects this may explain why they do not protest this harassment, as
much of the time the harassment itself treats them as objects. For example when Rachel is approaching
her harassers they look her up and down in what might well be an intimidating and objectifying way. The
harasser’s behaviour demonstrates how he may have internalised a certain view of women that softcore
pornography appears to maintain.
We have already seen that perlocutionary silencing is not something that in general should be
protected. People rarely have the right for the effects of their words to be as they wish them to be. To
demonstrate this let us return to the Let him have it example of the previous chapter. Let us imagine that in
saying “let him have it” Bentley does intend to order Chris to shoot Miles and that appropriate uptake is
achieved in Chris but before he pulls the trigger, Miles intervenes by saying “please don’t” and causes him
not to. Although Bentley has still been successful in both the locutionary sense, by being able to say the
words “let him have it” and in the illocutionary sense, by succeeding in ordering Chris, Miles has
manipulated the perlocutionary effect of Bentley’s words, to something which he did not originally intend.
Clearly Bentley does not have the right for his perlocutionary effects to be as he wished, not only because
we do not wish Miles to be shot, but also because to say so would be conceptually confused. If we were to
advocate protection of perlocutionary effects, there would be the problem of conflicting perlocutions. In this
example Bentley desires Miles to be shot when he says, “let him have it” and Miles desires not to be shot
35
Orr, Deborah, “A lack of women on TV panel shows may not be the worst injustice, but it matters”.
The World Bank, “Population, female (% of total)”,
http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.POP.TOTL.FE.ZS
37
American Psychological Association, Report of the APA Task Force on the Sexualization of Girls.
38
Various, “The Everyday Sexism Project,” http://everydaysexism.com/
36
32
Kaleidoscope 6.2. Special Issue, Hannah Storey, “Softcore Pornography, Speech Act
Theory and the Subordination and Silencing of Women”
when he says “please don’t”. Clearly both cannot happen at the same time therefore it would be absurd to
say that both perlocutions should be protected.
Although in general silencing of perlocutionary effects is not something we shall concern ourselves
with here, there is one way in which it might be harmful. If perlocutionary frustration of women were ‘total’,
then women’s words would never have the effect they desired. Evidently we do not protect perlocutionary
effects, nor do we consider it silencing when occasionally perlocutionary effects are frustrated, even in
important situation, however if women are systematically ignored in their wishes to refuse sexual advances
for example and men therefore consistently proceeded regardless, this would be incredibly problematic.
Further to this if softcore pornography was in part responsible for causing this, then it could be said that
softcore pornography does consistently interfere with the perlocutionary effects of women’s words. However
it is unlikely that the perlocutionary effects would be frustrated so systematically. If men were genuinely
recognising women’s protests surely not all men would proceed regardless. It is much more likely that they
did not recognise her words as a protest at all, which would constitute illocutionary silencing instead.
Now we come to discussing illocutionary silencing. This is a very significant form of silencing
because a person whose illocutionary force is frustrated does not only have the desired perlocutionary
effects of their speech altered, but they also cannot do what they wished to with their words. If women are
unable to do certain key things with their words, for example to protest against unwanted sexual
harassment or to make a stand against something they feel passionate about, this silencing is extremely
problematic.
Many women have recently spoken out about their experiences of abuse online after speaking in
public. These appearances included everything from historical documentaries, YouTube videos and public
protests, to name a few. These women were clearly not silenced in the locutionary sense, however their
speech was not recognised in the way that it was intended. One example of this is Mary Beard who after
presenting a historical documentary, as well as appearing on a BBC current affairs panel show, Question
time, was bombarded with abusive hate speech through Twitter and other online forums. This in itself does
not demonstrate that she was silenced. If people adamantly objected to her speech they might well take to
the internet to vocalise their objections. However the responses Beard received were generally not in
reference to her points at all. Evidently her speech was not successful in acquiring the appropriate uptake
and therefore perhaps it misfired.
Having looked in detail at many example cases, it seems clear that extreme online abuse tends to
belong to four categories: threats of sexual violence, insults pertaining to the look of the victim, death
threats and threats of non-sexual violence and finally messages that focus on the argument itself. In the few
days after her public appearances Beard mainly experienced the first three of these types of abuse. She
was called “a filthy old slut”39, sent several rape threats and her “features were even superimposed on an
image of female genitalia.”40 All of these types of abuse have one thing in common; they focus on Beard as
a person, as a woman and not on her arguments. Many readers would struggle to find out exactly what
Beard had said in the first place even after reading all of the responses. What was objectionable to the
abusers it seems was not what she said, but that she was saying it at all. This very clearly demonstrates
how her intended illocutionary force did not register with many of the viewers. The men who appeared on
the episode of Question time alongside her did not escape criticism. However, they did escape the deluge
of abuse that fits into the first two categories. More specifically, they did not receive threats of sexual
violence or insults pertaining to their looks.
If it is the case that both a man and a woman could say the same statement, in the same format and
forum, with the same qualifications and yet only the woman’s speech would not constitute the action she
desired, then she would have failed only in one condition, that of her gender. If it is also true that women
receive more extreme abuse after public appearances than men, and more of this abuse is in the first two
categories, directed at how she looks as well as threats of sexual violence, why is this the case? Could this
not be a result of speech that subordinates women by ranking them as inferior and as sexual objects?
If we now return to the examples of street harassment from the Everyday Sexism Project, we can see
that there are other instances in which women’s speech is not recognised for what they wish it to be. An
example of this from contributor Dahl is, “(he) continued to ask me out after I made it clear I was not
interested. Frustrated, he yelled out for all to hear, ‘Oh then you must be a Lesbian!’”41 In her own words,
she made it clear that she was not interested. Nevertheless the harasser did not recognise her protest as
39
Philipson, Alice, “The public schoolboy who called historian Mary Beard ‘a filthy old slut.’”
Day, Elizabeth, “Mary beard question time internet trolls.”
41
Various, The Everyday Sexism Project, http://everydaysexism.com/
40
33
Kaleidoscope 6.2. Special Issue, Hannah Storey, “Softcore Pornography, Speech Act
Theory and the Subordination and Silencing of Women”
she intended. Instead of recognising his mistreatment of her, he assumed she must be homosexual.
Another example of illocutionary silencing seen with regularity on the Everyday Sexism Project is when
women attempt to protest street harassment and their protests are met with laughter. Clearly the men in
these instances do not recognise these protests at all. They also further undermine the protester by treating
her protest as a joke. Although we cannot say there is direct link, this reaction almost appears to be a direct
extension of the attitude we saw the ‘news in briefs’ section of page 3 promoted, that women are to be
looked at and not to have opinions.
One objection to the account of illocutionary silencing, put forward by Jacobson42, is that although
one might be significantly harmed by illocutionary disablement, if there is any other way in which you may
get your point across then you are not silenced. For example body language or tone might alert the
recipient to the speaker’s intentions when the speech itself fails to do so. However let’s examine the
example noted earlier where Rachel remains silent whilst men talk to her unwantedly in the street. She
does not protest as Dahl does, instead she remains silent and tries to get away. It is clear that by pushing
past the speakers, her body language would demonstrate her wish not to be harassed and yet the men do
not register this protest and stop, instead they laugh. Although this is only one example, if the Everyday
Sexism Project is seen to be representative of women’s experience of street harassment as a group, then it
would be plausible that women are often silenced both in a locutionary and an illocutionary sense.
There is an interesting second effect of illocutionary silencing that must be explored. When a group
of people are repeatedly silenced and their illocutionary intent continually disabled, we have seen how they
may be open to horrific and sustained abuse, as demonstrated here by Mary Beard’s experiences, but also
unfortunately suffered by many other women. This abuse serves to not only demonstrate how women’s
speech can be misconstrued, but it may also cause what I will call secondary locutionary silencing. One
way in which people may be silenced in the locutionary sense is when they have been threatened.
Although online abusers do not specifically threaten would-be female public speakers, their threats and
abuse towards women who have already spoken out may act as a deterrent to other women. We have
already discussed that women do not hold as many public speaking roles as men. Even if you might argue
that this is caused by other factors, by contrast the internet provides a platform from which women can
easily speak without any obstacles, such as gaining specific qualifications, standing in their way. If there is
also evidence that women do not speak out as often as men online, disregarding of course anonymous
spaces, then we might suppose that the cause of illocutionary silencing is also indirectly silencing women
in a locutionary sense.
Much of this chapter has been concerned with instances where a majority or at least a significant
amount of women are affected. However some women do hold public speaking roles and do protest against
harassers in the street. Even if these are rare occurrences, they must be acknowledged. Can women as a
group be considered silenced if not all are affected? In the same way that general perceived legitimacy is
not required for an authority to subordinate the same might be said for silencing. Some women do not
accept that they are inferior, even though softcore pornography may tell them so; perhaps they have other
stronger influences that tell them differently and therefore undermine this message. We can see this
because some women do step forward and protest street harassment, or go on panel shows or become
comedians, or generally buck the trend. However although they might not accept the illocutionary message
of softcore pornography, if it is otherwise widely accepted in society, then they may still be silenced. Both
because their illocutionary intentions may not be recognised and because the terrible harassment many
women are subjected to after speaking out may cause them to choose not to speak up. In other words
women may not step up and take the podium for fear of being harassed in the same way, even if they do
not accept the message softcore pornography propagates. This would not even necessarily need to be
caused by widespread acceptance of softcore pornography subordinating women, even if this were to only
occur within a woman’s local community, in her workplace, or her home for example she might well still be
silenced.
Concluding Remarks
Initially we may have assumed that softcore pornography is less objectionable than other categories
of pornography, because its content is less extreme. However by analysing softcore pornography through
Langton’s Austinian framework and comparing its illocutionary forces to that of the subordinating speech
acts of apartheid, we have seen that it is plausible that softcore pornography also subordinates women.
42
Jacobson, “Freedom of Speech acts? A response to Langton,” p.75.
34
Kaleidoscope 6.2. Special Issue, Hannah Storey, “Softcore Pornography, Speech Act
Theory and the Subordination and Silencing of Women”
If softcore pornography is an authoritative voice it is possible that it ranks women as inferior and as sexual
objects, legitimises discrimination against them and deprives them of the power to freely act in a way that
subverts sexist stereotypes. Although it does this by virtue of its own content, we have expanded upon this
idea to see that softcore pornography also satisfies these conditions through its allusion to mainstream
pornography.
We have also explored the idea that softcore pornography can silence women in both a locutionary
and illocutionary sense. Although silencing can sometimes be unavoidable, and perhaps is not always a
negative thing, systematic silencing of women that includes preventing them from doing certain important
things with their words, surely needs to be prevented. For example it is important that women are able to
protest any level of harassment from catcalling to rape. I am not arguing that women should have the
perlocutionary effects of their speech protected, although in instances of harassment I can’t deny that I
wish they were, but if women are not silenced then they can at least try to protest. Finally we have seen that
if softcore pornography is authoritative speech that subordinates women, then it might well propagate sexist
ideas about women and in turn this may cause women to be silenced in several ways. We have already
seen that softcore pornography may cause illocutionary silencing and in some instances this needs to be
prevented, but we can now also appreciate that softcore pornography may also cause silencing in a
locutionary sense, which perhaps is just as dangerous.
As we have seen there are many conditions to constituting a speech act that both subordinates and
silences. If we wished to prevent softcore pornography from silencing and subordinating women, we could
achieve this by challenging a few of its important felicity conditions; banning it all together might be
unnecessary. It may be possible to undermine softcore pornography with contesting authoritative speech
acts. This has worked successfully in the past, for example to undermine smoking. Over time hard-hitting
campaigns from the government about the negative impacts of smoking have served to completely
undermine what was once a common habit. Hence if there was an authoritative voice that was willing to
combat the negative effects of softcore pornography, then it might be possible to undermine its authority
and therefore prevent it from further subordinating and silencing women.
Bibliography
Books and Journal Articles
Austin, J. L. How to do things with words, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1962.
Bird, A. “Illocutionary Silencing.”Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 83, no. 1 (2002): 1-15. Accessed Feb 21,
2014. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1468-0114.00137/abstract
Gilbert, P. “Review of Sexual Solipsism: Philosophical and Objectification by Rae Langton.” Analysis 70, no.
3 (2010): 597-599. Accessed Mar 29, 2014. http://www.scribd.com/doc/17271135/The-Internetand-Its-Effect-on-Generations-of-Women-in-America
Green, L. “Pornographizing, Subordinating and Silencing.” In Censorship and Silencing: Practices of
Cultural Regulation, edited by Robert Post, 285-311. Los Angeles: Getty Research Institute for the
History of Art and Humanities, 1998.
Holbrook, M. and J. O'Shaughnessy. “The Role of Emotion in Advertising.” Psychology and Marketing 1,
no. 2 (1984): 45-64.
Hornsby, J. “Disempowered Speech.” Philosophical Topics 23, no. 2 (1995): 127-143.
Jacobson, D. “Freedom of Speech Acts? A Response to Langton.” Philosophy and Public Affairs 24, no. 1
(1995): 64-79.
Langton, R. “Subordination, Silence and Pornography’s Authority.” In Censorship and Silencing: Practices
of Cultural Regulation, edited by Robert Post, 261-283. Los Angeles: Getty Research Institute for the
History of Art and Humanities, 1998.
--- “Duty and Desolation.” Philosophy 67 (1992): 481-505.
--- “Speech Acts and Unspeakable acts.” Philosophy and Public Affairs 22 (1993): 64-79.
Langton, R. and J. Hornsby. “Free Speech and Illocution.” Legal Theory 4 (1998): 21-37.
Langton, R. and C. West. “Scorekeeping in a Pornographic Language Game.” Australasian Journal of
Philosophy 77 (1999): 303-319.
Mackinnon, C. A. Feminism Unmodifed: Discourses on Life and Law. London: Harvard University Press,
1987.
--- Only Words. London: Harvard University Press, 1987.
Maitra, I. and M. K. McGowan. “On Silencing, Rape and Responsibility.” Australasian Journal of Philosophy
88, no. 1 (2010): 167-172.
35
Kaleidoscope 6.2. Special Issue, Hannah Storey, “Softcore Pornography, Speech Act
Theory and the Subordination and Silencing of Women”
McGowan, M. K., A. Adelman, S. Helmers and J. Stolzenberg. “A partial defense of illocutionary silencing.”
Hypatia 26, no. 1 (2011): 132-149.
Saul, J. (2006) 'Pornography, Speech acts and Context', Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, New
Series, 106, pp. 229-248.
Stankiewicz, J. M. and F. Rosselli. “Women as Sex Objects and Victims in Print Advertisements.” Sex Roles
58 (2008): 579-589.
Other Sources
ABCs. “ABCs: National daily newspaper circulation January 2014.” The Guardian, Feb 14, 2014.
http://www.theguardian.com/media/table/2014/mar/14/abcs-national-newspapers.
American Psychological Association. “Report of the APA Task Force on the Sexualization of Girls.” APA.
2010. http://www.apa.org/pi/women/programs/girls/report-full.pdf
Bates, L. “The Everyday Sexism Project.” 2014. http://everydaysexism.com/ (accessed Apr 3, 2014)
BBC Three. “BBC Three survey reveals one in four young people first view porn at age 12 or under.” BBC.
2014. http://www.bbc.co.uk/mediacentre/latestnews/2014/porn-whats-the-harm (accessed Apr 15,
2014)
British
National
Party.
“Wishing
you
a
White
Christmas.”
BNP.
2013.
http://www.bnp.org.uk/news/national/wishing-you-white-christmas (accessed Mar 16, 2014)
Day, E. “Mary Beard: I almost didn't feel such generic, violent misogyny was about me.” The Guardian, Jan
26, 2013. http://www.theguardian.com/books/2013/jan/26/mary-beard-question-time-internet-trolls
Dodge
Dart.
“Fast
and
Furious
6
Dodge
Dart
Commercial.”
YouTube,
2013.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qKWTaWyGwko (accessed Apr 14, 2014)
Donovan, P. “Study Finds Marked Rise in Intensely Sexualized Images of Women, not Men.” University of
Buffalo. 2011. http://www.buffalo.edu/news/releases/2011/08/12769.html (accessed Apr 2, 2014)
Holmes, L.-A. “No More Page 3.” No More Page 3. 2014. http://nomorepage3.org/ (accessed Apr 24,
2014)
Medak, P. “Let him have it” British Screen Productions. 1991.
Motoring News. “Computer games ‘encourage speeding.’” The Telegraph, May 1, 2009.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/news/5250094/Computer-games-encourage-speeding.html.
Opportunity
Now.
“Project
28-40
Report.”
2014.
http://opportunitynow.bitc.org.uk/sites/default/files/kcfinder/files/Diversity/28-40/Project%202840%20The%20Report.pdf
Orr, D. “A lack of women on TV panel shows may not be the worst injustice, but it matters.” The Guardian,
Feb 28, 2014.
Oxford Dictionaries. “Definition of Twerk.” http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/twerk
(accessed: 1st May 2014)
Philipson, A. “Pictured: the public schoolboy who called historian Mary Beard a ‘filthy old slut.’” The
Telegraph, Jul 31, 2013. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-andorder/10212915/Pictured-the-public-schoolboy-who-called-historian-Mary-Beard-a-filthy-oldslut.html Rihanna. “Pour it up.” YouTube, 2013. Accessed Nov 7, 2013.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ehcVomMexkY
The
World
Bank.
“Population,
female
(%
of
total).”
The
World
Bank.
2014.
http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.POP.TOTL.FE.ZS (accessed May 1, 2014)
36
Kaleidoscope 6.2. Special Issue, Hannah Storey, “Softcore Pornography, Speech Act
Theory and the Subordination and Silencing of Women”
Hannah Storey
St. Mary’s College
Durham University
Hannah Storey has just completed a Natural Sciences degree at St Mary’s College, Durham
University. This paper was prepared for a final year dissertation in philosophy under the guidance of
Dr Rachael Wiseman. Storey’s motivation to consider how representations of women in the media
may serve to subordinate and silence women was fuelled by both the onslaught of internet abuse
towards women as well as the perseverance of ‘Page Three’ culture.
37