Extenuating Circum Stances, Pt. 1: Introduction

As the father to both a daughter and a son, I was struck by the oddity that, while I was asked by several people, including medical personnel and non-medical, interested parties, whether or not I was going to have my son circumcised, not a single person asked if I was going to have my daughter circumcised. Indeed, some people assumed that I was having my son circumcised without asking, as if leaving him uncircumcised was not an option. What is the basis for this assumption? Is it based on social, political, economic, religious, medical, or a combination of factors? And why is there not a similar assumption, or even a question, regarding circumcising our daughters? In order to answer these questions, an examination of circumcision must account for social, economic, religious, cultural, and other factors that have shaped the history and development of the practice, and the controversies that ensue, along the binary lines of gender.

While routine male circumcision is not seen as medically necessary by most medical associations in the world – more on this to come – routine, non-medical circumcision rates in the United States remain high. In fact, routine male circumcision remains the most common surgery in the United States[1] with over 1 million boys being circumcised each year. There is a decline in routine neonatal circumcision; the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention released a report in 2011 that showed a drop in newborn male circumcision from 62.5% in 1999 to 56.9% in 2008 using data from the National Hospital Discharge Survey.[2] Still, the United States stands alone as the last medically advanced nation to routinely perform this surgery on infants. In this sense, male circumcision is a uniquely American phenomenon with a complex history that intersects religious, social, political, economic, and scientific domains. The primary arguments for the widespread continuation of circumcision today tend to come from religious and social points of view, while the arguments against come primarily from scientific views, but economics also finds itself playing a unique part in the reduction of circumcision, particularly in the Western U.S., where immigration of Mexican and other Latin American individuals is high and some states have removed Medicaid coverage of the surgery.[3]

When it comes to the female genitals, however, the United States stands nearly as a whole at the opposite side of the spectrum. The majority of the world’s female circumcision occurs in Africa and several countries in Asia and the Middle East. The World Health Organization has estimated that about 101 million girls aged 10 and older have undergone female genital cutting (abbreviated FGC) in Africa alone.[4] The practice is largely encouraged for religious and social reasons, including ensuring chastity and proving the sexual purity of a girl to her husband. In the West, most opponents of FGC belie any notion of social benefits, insisting that the consequences for FGC far outweigh any possible benefits. And this is the essence of the controversy, what I refer to as “The West versus the Rest,” though, admittedly, this may not be the most accurate description. The debate over FGC is not simple by any means; on its surface it is a about female genitals, but deep down it is about culture, ideology, social status, and, indeed, gender relations.

For the purposes of remaining as neutral as possible while discussing the practices, controversies, and analysis of both male and female genital modification surgery, I have chosen to refer to both practices with the phrase “genital cutting.” While male circumcision is rarely referred to as male genital cutting (MGC), this phrase will be used to avoid confusion and to better compare it to the genital cutting practices of FGC. FGC, meanwhile, will be used to avoid underrepresenting the risks, procedures, or complications resulting from cutting female genitals (i.e., female circumcision) or overstating the horrors typically only associated with the more sever forms of FGC (i.e., female genital mutilation, or FGM). As will be discussed below, different groups prefer different terms depending on the specific cutting practice and its significance to their ideology or tradition.

[1] http://academicdepartments.musc.edu/surgery/divisions/pediatric/procedures/circumcisionhttp://academicdepartments.musc.edu/surgery/divisions/pediatric/procedures/circumcision

[2] http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6034a4.htm?s_cid=mm6034a4_w

[3] Bell 2005:129

[4] http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs241/en/index.html

Extenuating Circum Stances

I'm in the process of conducting some new anthropological research on the controversies surrounding male and female genital cutting. Note, I am choosing not to use the term circumcision where avoidable, instead relying on the more neutral phrase "genital cutting" as circumcision tends to denote only male foreskin removal and does not account for the wide range of surgical procedures performed on female genitals worldwide. Additionally, the phrase "genital mutilation," which is commonly used in the West to refer to female genital cutting (FGC) draws attention to the horrors of FGC, while not accounting for the less drastic acts of clitoral and clitoral hood "shaving" or "clipping" and FGC that only involves piercing. Not all FGC is as drastic as some groups make it out to be, which involves total infibulation, or the complete removal of the clitoris, outer and inner labia, and is followed up by the sewing shut of the vaginal opening leaving only a small hole for menstrual fluids and urine. While this does occur, if you read the posts to come, you will no doubt see that this is not the only form of FGC.

As a brief intro, I will include the abstract from my research here. I will be posting my introductory section within the next two weeks, followed, hopefully, by a section per week.

Abstract: To cut, or not to cut? That is the question. The arguments for circumcision, both male and female, while often coming from religious or ethical groups, state medical benefits that arise from removing the foreskin, clitoris, or labia. For many years, however, arguments have been made against circumcision denying those same benefits. Opponents of male circumcision often cite its barbaric nature and argue that the medical benefits are largely overstated. A common argument is that while the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) stated in 2012 that a decline in male circumcision could result in higher rates of urinary tract infections, HIV, and HPV in men, the AAP neglects to account for the lower overall rates of such issues in European and Asian countries with larger populations of uncircumcised men. Regardless of such arguments, the cultural and religious views of many individuals in the United States and many third world countries, particularly those with significant Abrahamic religious influence, continue to result in traditional infant male circumcisions. At the same time, in the United States, female circumcision and clitoridectomy are rare and may be considered by many to be heinous acts. This begs the question, then: what is the difference between male and female genital mutilation and why is one considered to be more cultural acceptable than the other? Additionally, what are the cultural beliefs that allow one group to not only largely accept genital mutilation but encourage it? The controversy surrounds the notion that genital circumcision, both male and female, particularly when concerning children and infants, is a human rights issue. This notion, however, is deeply divided along gender lines, along with economic, social, and religious lines.

Gender Imagery in Film, Pt. 5: Self-Mutilation and Female Circumcision

Religion has never been a stranger to self-torture and mutilation. This is particularly true of the Abrahamic religions of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. In his infamous work Beyond Good and Evil, Nietzsche states, “From the start, the Christian faith is a sacrifice: a sacrifice of all freedom, all pride, all self-confidence of the spirit; at the same time, enslavement and self-mockery, self-mutilation.”[1] In many instances, the self-torture is one that is purely psychological: fear of Hell; fear of physical torture; fear of fire and brimstone; self-censorship and anxiety over “impure thoughts;” &c. In other instances, the focus is on the physical shell. Certain sects of Catholicism have been known to practice self-flagellation as a form of repentance. Muslims, particularly radical Muslims, have been increasingly involved in suicide missions to promote their faith – suicide bombing arguably being the ultimate form of self-mutilation. Male circumcision is certainly a form of mutilation and, though it is typically performed on children and not self-inflicted, it can be if older men  decide to have it done. Female circumcision is another animal altogether, with consequences far more destructive than that of male circumcision. Perhaps it can be considered ironic, or, at the least, a contradiction in terms, that God allows us to slice skin off of our sons’ penises while insisting that our body is a temple.[2] In any event, the notion of physical mutilation is surely on familiar terms with religion.

Though Antichrist offers an overflowing handful of graphic violence in the second half of the film, it is the self-inflicted female circumcision scene that is almost certainly the most stomach churning and, arguably, the most misogynistic. If only one scene in the history of film had to be chosen to depict the culmination of hundreds of years of religious intolerance, resulting in an unmistakable fear and self-loathing instilled into the minds of women, it could be this horrendously vivid scene. By depicting an act so heinous, one that is still occurring in many cultures and subcultures today worldwide for a variety of reasons, von Trier is drawing a straight line connecting woman’s wickedness with her clitoris. The oppression of the woman, Antichrist purports, is a direct result of the intensity derived from her pleasure center. A pleasure center that, by the way, still baffles scientific minds today.

Building up to the aforementioned circumcision, She physically and emotionally tortures her husband, and begins to torture herself emotionally. Her sexual impulses drive her psychotic behavior and upon realizing that her desire for sexual pleasure is the cause of her son’s death, shown through flashbacks to the prologue, she grabs a pair of rusty shears, conveniently located underneath her buttocks. Once She has removed her clitoris, He is able to “free” countless women – women without faces, without identities, without any direct connection to Eve – from the bonds of their own self-hatred.

Despite being as gruesome a scene as any horror film one, further speculation of the entire sequence reveals something rather laughable: von Trier is a complete narcissist. As She inflicts the wound on herself, it is He who gets the credit for freeing the women enslaved to their own desires, not She. He wins. Yes, this is still misogyny, but the root must certainly be von Trier's own narcissism.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] Nietzsche, 250.

[2] HarperCollins, 1 Corinthians 6:19-20

Gender Imagery in Film, Pt. 4: Antichrist

It has been a while since my last post. I have been focusing on some new changes at work, with my family, and in academics. This post focuses on the Lars von Trier film, Antichrist. When I last left off, I spoke of Disney's representation through many of their films of the female as a representation of the sins of Eve.

And a metamorphosis into sin it is, that She, female lead of Antichrist, undergoes throughout the 2009 Cannes film festival’s most detested film. Lars von Trier’s Antichrist is the product of one man’s internal struggles with his personal Christian beliefs and fears, and is a strikingly visual interpretation of woman as executor of iniquity. His vision runs the gamut from male dominance to female dominance, from child sacrifice to self-mutilation, from psychiatry to psychologically volatile, from sex to torture to freedom. In short, Antichrist could take its tagline from Nietzsche himself: “The Christian resolve to find the world ugly and bad has made the world ugly and bad.”1 Even comedian, social critic, and philosopher, Bill Hicks noted the tendency for Christian fear-mongering. He said “The whole image is that eternal suffering awaits anyone who questions God's infinite love. That's the message we're brought up with, isn't it? Believe or die! Thank you, forgiving Lord, for all those options!”2

The Danish writer-director penned the screenplay and began filming it while in a deep depression and after having forgone the use of anti-depressants3, which could explain the daunting imagery, discouraging, dismal tone and complete lack of censorship. Additionally, it may be the only film in the short history of moving pictures to hire a “researcher on misogyny.”4

The film is divided into chapters, visually, each one explicitly titled and providing a distinct division between parts – similar to the way in which most books, including the Bible, are divided into chapters distinguishing a change in space, time or subject material. The film’s main title and all the subsequent chapter titles are drawn on a chalkboard, each one written different becoming darker and more embittered until the epilogue title. The use of a chalkboard could signify that the film is going to teach the viewer a lesson, mimicking the use of a chalkboard in a school setting. There are four chapters in total, named Grief, Pain, Despair, and The Three Beggars, as well as a prologue and an epilogue. Besides the previously mentioned link between the chapters of the film and the chapters in the Bible, the film ties the chapters to images in the film. The three beggars are shown briefly in the prologue as three pewter statue soldiers, labeled pain, grief, and despair. Later, in the beginning of chapter 3 (Despair), He, played by Willem Dafoe, finds them amongst his wife’s research materials, depicted this time as constellations of a fox, a crow, and a deer, and later sees these constellations in the sky while a voice over says, “I’ve never seen such constellations.” In addition, all three animals appear at regular intervals throughout the film, often at the end of the chapter that shares their namesake.

The connection of the three beggars to the zodiac imitates the same proposal that the Disney films introduced through the imagery of the villainesses in tying women to witchcraft. The first time He sees the deer, at the end of chapter 1, they share a moment of silent communication before the deer runs away, revealing a dead fawn hanging from out of its mother’s vagina, being kicked around in slow motion, both reflecting the death of his child and foreshadowing information that is to come concerning his wife and son. The appearance of the deer is significant to both He and the viewer, as it mimics the relationship between mother and child that is a major plot point for von Trier. Furthermore, the slow motion shot and high pitched whistle with no dialogue draw an immediate union between the end of the prologue and the end of chapter one, relying heavily on the viewer’s interpretation of visual images to make these distinctions.

Antichrist opens with a lengthy slow-motion sex scene, filmed in black and white, set against the Handel aria “Lascia Ch'io Pianga” from the opera Rinaldo, which, even as it builds in character, sounds full of lament and sorrow. As the couple engage in fully graphic and rather raucous coitus, their toddler son is seen climbing onto a desk, then onto the sill of an open window and, predictably, falling to his death. Following the art house technique of interpreting scenes of intensity in a most dramatic fashion, the boy’s super slow-motion fall is cut to moments of the mother’s orgasmic ecstasy in a long, drawn out, borderline painful manner. After witnessing the boy’s teddy bear plow face first into the snow below, the viewer is left with the uneasy feeling that the boy’s death is a result of the parents’ sexual encounter, and that there exists some tie between his mother’s sexual pleasure and his death. There hangs the impression that the family is being punished for allowing the woman sexual gratification.

Furthermore, the decision to show explicit sex, with a close-up shot of penile-vaginal insertion, heightens the connection that von Trier is making between the original sin, sex, and death. Before Eve’s sin, there was no shame5 surrounding nudity and sex, whereas today there is a large amount of discomfort and the resulting censorship of anything sexual. Von Trier’s overt sexual imagery in one way references itself (a movie about sex should surely have sex in it; this opening sex scene foreshadows upcoming sexual scenes) and in another references history’s discomfort with sex. As the viewer is caught off guard, likely having never seen such a scene in a non-pornographic film, he or she is imbued with the same shame and anxiety that Adam and Eve felt upon recognizing their nakedness. In a certain sense, Antichrist is saying that Eve’s sin has resulted in film and art censorship through the unveiling of the human sense of embarrassment. It is woman who has ruined paradise and brought upon us shame and death, both tied to the act of sex, the same act that creates life – because of woman’s wickedness, the creation of life is now, too, the destroyer of life. Just as there can be no divorce without marriage, there can be no death without life. While still contemplating the connection between these two drastically different displays of life and death, the viewer is thrust into the next chapter.

The remainder of the film is shot in color, though von Trier keeps the colors cold, damp and unwelcoming, like a moldy cellar – so strong are his color, cinematographic, and prop choices that as a viewer, you can practically smell the old furniture bathed in cat urine in the couple’s shabby Seattle home or the rotten stench, like decaying hamster bedding, as the main characters trample through the woods en route to their cabin. Von Trier favors long shots with little dialogue, allowing the viewer to feel as if they themselves are immersed in the scenery, feeling the same discomfort, fatigue, disillusionment, sadness, and fear that He and She experience. He relies on an atmosphere of realism, despite the rather unrealistic characteristics of his storyline. Sturken and Cartwright note that realism “has been a fundamental goal of many styles of art, because art has often functioned to reflect society and nature back to its spectators.”6 Antichrist, as a work of modern art, or even postmodern art, intends to relay a feeling of pragmatism, of possibility, of reality, in the face of the oncoming less practical, more metaphysical, myth-like horrors that unfold as the plot thickens. Antichrist could be considered both modern, with its realistic depictions of sex and the historical treatment of women along with its linear frame and its ties to classical literature and art, and postmodern, as it questions the notions of what is actually real and really provides us with no clear resolution in the end. Like many religious and spiritual films, Antichrist relies heavily on a blend of reality and mythology, similarly to the book in which it derives its “originality” and its substance, The Bible.

Returning to the three beggars, just as they return throughout the film, the ties to the biblical trinity is undeniable. Many ancient religions put particular emphasis on numbers, particularly those that were polytheistic – Judaism and Christianity are no different. Though today, the Jewish and Christian establishments claim monotheism, there exists in the Bible evidence to the contrary. Generic references to ancient god Baal can be found littered throughout the Old Testament7, as well as references to other divine beings, including “sons of god”8, “nephilim” and “angels”9, “satan” 10and, of course, Jesus11. Recognition of other divine beings, let alone other beings existing in the same heavenly realm, negates the possibility of monotheism. Christianity attempts to “Jedi mind trick” believers by claiming that the three are really one (which, coincidentally, defies all logic and rationality), and has therefore settled on the notion of a “Holy Trinity.” The three beggars represent von Trier’s interpretation of the Christian trinity, easy for the meticulous observer to spot when other mythical references are revealed.

Perhaps, the most obvious references are provided to us by the characters in a self-referential way. Sturken and Cartwright, in reference to the view that producers of art construct an intended meaning, say that filmmakers, amongst other artists, create images “with the intent that we read them in a certain way” while still maintaining that the producer is “not in full control of the meanings that are subsequently seen in their work.”12 In particular, von Trier intends his audience to be aware of Antichrist’s connections to Christianity: the name of the cabin in the forest in which his main characters experience their fall from grace is named “Eden;” He draws a triangle similar to the food pyramid on a piece of paper, representative of She’s psyche, in an attempt to understand her fears, and, at different points of time in his attempt to analyze her mental state, he labels them with the words “Eden” and “Satan;” the research materials that belong to She have wood-carving style pictures of witch burnings, which were largely produced during a period of religious persecution against women of otherness [otherness being anything outside of the societal-religious norm: insubordinate, intellectual, atheist, &c.]. Once he can create the obvious connections to religious teachings, he can truly begin to deconstruct his own spiritual interpretations and thrust his views onto the spectators. Those spectacles can be subdivided into their own categories: self-mutilation and female circumcision, child sacrifice, and female dominance, though all three intertwine and overlap.

---------------------
1 Nietzsche, 172.
2 Bill Hicks, Rant in E Minor, Rykodisc, 1997.
3 Sean O’Hagan, "Interview: Lars von Trier," guardian.co.uk, 12 Jul. 2009. Web. <http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2009/jul/12/lars-von-trier-interview>, 17 Apr. 2010.
4 Antichrist, dir. Lars von Trier, perf. Willem Defoe and Charlotte Gainsbourg, DVD, Zentropa Entertainments, 2009.
5 HarperCollins. Genesis 2:25
6 Sturken and Cartwright, 111.
7 HarperCollins. Judges 2:11, 10:10; Numbers 25:3; Deuteronomy 4:3; &c.
8 HarperCollins. Genesis 6:1-8; Job 1:6, 2:1, 38:7; Daniel 3:25; Psalm 89:6; &c.
9 HarperCollins. Genesis 6:4; 1 Peter 3:18-22; 2 Peter 2:4-5; Jude 6.
10 HarperCollins. Job 2:1-7; John 8:44; James 4:7; Revelation 20:10; &c.
11 HarperCollins. The New Testament
12 Sturken and Cartwright, 45-46.

Gender Imagery in Film, Pt. 3

The characterization of witches, faeries, wicked stepmothers, and other negative roles for women play into all forms of commercially available art, especially film. Disney’s animated films could warrant a paper on misogynistic imagery in and of itself. For example, many of the Disney villains are actually villainesses. Lady Tremaine from Cinderella[1] is the ultimate evil stepmother: self-centered, tyrannical, power hungry, and a backstabber to boot. The Queen from Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs[2] is willing to have her stepdaughter murdered to feed her own ego. The tale combines imagery of witchcraft (the magic mirror on the wall) with allusions to women’s desire for preening and narcissism. Half-woman, half-octopus Ursula from Disney’s The Little Mermaid[3] is a combination of similar misogynist stereotypes from tales of witchcraft and Biblical stories. Ursula is an evil sorceress who is arguably the least attractive of the villainesses, being half-octopus, overweight, and with a stereotypical lesbian short haircut and a big mole on her face. Her two cohorts are eels, or water serpents, mimicking the serpent of the Genesis myth. Cruella De Vil is a villainess so evil, she kills puppies. Like Ursula, she has short, grey (or white) hair, and has decidedly inhuman features. Cruella’s face is more demonic, or even witch-like, and her demeanor is quite psychotic. Like Lady Tremaine, Cruella’s only concern is for wealth and status, without concern for who gets hurt along the way[4]. The typical association of selfishness without regard to female characters is yet again linked to the tale of Eve’s selfishness in Genesis.

Perhaps the villainess who portrays evil in the most magnificent way is the stunning Maleficent from Sleeping Beauty[5]. She embodies the attributes of the aforementioned desperadas, while throwing in a few accoutrements at no extra cost. Maleficent damns a baby to exile and death, practices sorcery, and eventually turns into a giant serpent-like dragon in an attempt to distinguish the fair prince. She is drawn with typical Christian imagery influenced features normally associated with Lucifer (who is often considered to be the serpent of the Genesis myth, though there is no real link between the two in the original text), as she is tall, thin, and beautiful with horns and seen as leading little goblin-like demons. Revelation 12:9 describes both Satan as a dragon and the presence of his angels: “The great dragon was thrown down, that ancient serpent, who is called the Devil and Satan… and his angels were thrown down with him.[6]” If the visuals were not enough, Maleficent even summons upon “all the powers of hell.” She immeasurably reflects the traditional Christian view of both Satan and the woman as an evil entity. In all cases mentioned, these womanly villains are obsessed with wickedness and their psychotic personas are reflected not only in their actions, but in their appearances as well.

The measure of a female character’s evilness is not the end of the measure of a film’s misogyny factor, however. The relatively recent saturation of “chick flicks” has solidified the American female stereotype of a dimwitted, appearance- and shoe-obsessed shopaholic. Female roles are so standardized in the Romantic Comedy genre, they might as well come with labels from major market brands or advertisement agencies, showing them to be exact replicas of each other, produced in bulk for the cinematic masses. Any given film starring the likes of Jennifer Lopez, Sandra Bullock, or Matthew McConaughey, et al., is sure to have similar themes, similar visuals, similar dialogue, and similar characters: the sassy black friend; the self-absorbed blonde bimbo; the single, childless businesswoman; the sex-obsessed ethnic minority. By characterizing women in a way that says, “proper women must fit into these rigidly defined categories,” the film industry, and the “chick flick” subgenre in particular, are pulling out the stops, and spreading this misogyny thickly onto the female moviegoer, in a most ridiculous, non-romantically-comedic manner.

Returning to Disney’s animated classics, the positions of the central female characters, often princesses, though not evil, are very descriptive about gender roles and gender neutrality. Snow White and Cinderella, for example, are both women who work as slaves, but in two different capacities. Cinderella is quite literally a slave to her stepmother and stepsisters. She is treated not as a member of the family but instead as an insignificant worker bee who is unworthy to partake in their life of luxury, which is actually the result of her father’s fortune. Cinderella accepts her situation, but hopes that someday a prince will rescue her. Snow White, in a similar fashion, struggles with stepmother issues, only to a more serious extent. She, like Cinderella, accepts this fate, and in the meantime, takes over the household chores for a group of seven male strangers, while waiting around to be rescued from herself by a handsome and wealthy prince. Little girls grow up seeing these images of women, even as members of royalty, as slaves to household duties. And nearly all of the Disney classics enforce the notion that to live happily ever after, the woman needs to marry a man of wealth and status. A surprising converse would be the tale of Aladdin, wherein the wealthy princess, Jasmine, rejects the attempts of her father to have her marry into wealth, and instead falls in love with and marries a poor street kid [do not be mistaken, however, Aladdin is not without its faults. It may be one of the most racially controversial Disney films, as Aladdin, Jasmine, and the Sultan are all seemingly white characters, not Arabic. The only dark skinned character is, of course, the evil character, Jafar][7].

The typical Disney princess, including both Cinderella and Snow White, as well as Aurora (Sleeping Beauty), Belle (from Beauty and the Beast[8]), and Ariel (The Little Mermaid), have issues relating to their fathers. In some cases the father is dead or missing, and in others he is distant or easily disappointed. The only way for the princess to find genuine happiness is to find another man, similar to her father in status, to whisk her away to a magic life full of true love and animals with human traits. The princess will know true love as soon as Mr. Right arrives – there is no need to bother with dating, introductions to friends and family, and definitely no reason to ask any “get-to-know-you” questions. It is important for the princess to not waste any time with formalities, because she could end up single – then who would save her from herself when she begins her immoral metamorphosis into pure sin?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] Cinderella, dir. Clyde Geronimi, et al., perf. Ilene Woods, VHS, Disney, 1950.
[2] Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs, writ. Jacob and Wilhelm Grimm, perf. Adriana Caselotti, VHS, Disney, 1937.
[3] The Little Mermaid, dir. Ron Clement and John Musker, perf. Jodi Benson and Pat Carroll, VHS, Disney, 1989.
[4] 101 Dalmatians, dir. Clyde Geronimi, et al., perf. Betty Lou Gerson, VHS, Disney, 1961.
[5] Sleeping Beauty, dir. Clyde Geronimi, perf. Eleanor Audley and Mary Costa, VHS, Disney, 1959.
[6] HarperCollins. Revelation 12:9
[7] Aladdin, dir. Ron Clements and John Musker, perf. Scott Weinger and Robin Williams, DVD, Disney, 1992.
[8] Beauty and the Beast, dir. Gary Trousdale and Kirk Wise, perf. Robby Benson and Paige O’Hara, VHS, Disney, 1991.

Virtual Ethics, Pt. 5: Virtual Communities and the Law

The use of advanced technology to conduct criminal activity is not a new trend. Each year cyber attacks become more sophisticated and use a wider variety of attack vectors. It should come as no surprise then that virtual worlds are targets for cyber criminal activity as well as vessels for cybercrime communication. In response to growing concerns about the role of virtual communities in the larger framework of cybercrime, legislative bodies and law enforcement officials have begun to see a need to oversee and regulate virtual world interactions.

The issue of responsibility for governing virtual worlds has implications on multiple levels. First, virtual worlds are not restricted to the same lines of jurisdiction as other, more traditional environments. By the very nature of their existence, virtual communities transcend the physical limitations of geography. For example, five Second Life residents occupying the same plot of simulated land, or sim, can be controlled by actual world residents located on five different continents. Governing acceptable behaviors and interactions between those five in terms of what actually constitutes illegal behavior cannot easily be worked out. If, for example, their interactions are sexual in nature, the problem arises of which jurisdiction’s laws should stand? In the United States, First Amendment protections allow “age-play,” or virtual sexual encounters with childlike avatars. Other countries may not share the same view on freedom of expression and thus may deem such activity illegal. Furthermore, one or more of the residents interacting in such a way may actually feel harassed or put off by such interactions. Boellstorff notes that, while “age-play” may not be a particularly uncommon occurrence in certain virtual circles, “for many residents virtual pedophilia [is] highly discomfiting, not least because in some jurisdictions even simulated sex with minors could be a crime” (Boellstorff 164). Even if simulated sex with minors is not illegal, concerns may arise about the kinds of individuals who would fancy such behavior and whether or not this victimless virtual behavior would or could translate to actual world behavior.

The second issue with governance is the gap between law and contract agreements. Most virtual worlds have contractual agreements between users and governing bodies, such as Linden Labs, the San Francisco-based creators and maintainers of Second Life. Users must agree to the terms of service, which typically dictate the kinds of behavior that is deemed “illegal.” Such behavior might be hacking, sexual and other forms of harassment, or threatening other players. Other rules may be irrelevant to anything outside of in-world activity, such as the building of certain types of virtual designs in restricted areas of sims in Second Life, thus typical laws would not apply. With regard to the breaking of virtual rules, "the imposition of punishment for the breach of internal rules exists in a difficult conceptual gap between criminal law and the predominantly compensatory remedies of contractual doctrine” (Suzor §1). Punishment for crimes, then, is determined by which side of the gap the crime falls into. Whether or not a crime is actual, virtual, or both must be determined before disciplinary action, should any be required, is enforced.

The last issue with governance is crime reporting. In the actual world, a victim, observer, or bystander typically has to report a violation or crime when one has occurred. Occasionally, a criminal may choose to turn himself in without law enforcement even being aware of a crime. However, the virtual world offers a unique tool for rule enforcement that is not present in the actual world, at least in most places: continuous activity monitoring and logging. Because the whole of a virtual environment’s existence is possible only through the use of computers, that existence can be logged and monitored. Granted the size of some worlds, such as Second Life or World of Warcraft, are so large, the task is no small order. Yet, the storage capacity of today’s servers is vast, and while the task of actually monitoring logs can be tedious, there are elements in place that can allow for automated scripts to seek out specific types of information. This ability is typically not afforded to law enforcement outside of electronic crime investigations.

The question remains, however, whether or not users would agree to continuous monitoring, even for security purposes. Because Internet users, at least those in the West, are accustomed to “freedom of information” and minimal censorship, many would choose a virtual option that does not track their activity over one that does. So, while the ability for continuous monitoring may exist, the acceptance of such a process would likely be quite small—even if it meant an increased sense of safety.

Perhaps the one area that most people would not argue against increasing legal protections is in crimes against children. Joan Shaughnessy points out that there is crossover between existing laws against child exploitation and the virtual sex act of age-play. She found that “in many states, an adult who engages in virtual sex with a child may be subject to prosecution,” and that in some other cases, “the law has criminalized sexual behavior aimed at children, even if no touching is involved” (Shaughnessy). Laws such as these can be used against virtual crimes against children or where children can be harmed, even emotionally. Despite the laws not being written specifically with virtual crimes in mind, they can be applied due to the actual world developmental effects that such activity can have on a child. Perhaps most important to note is that in virtual environments, sexual interaction between users is direct interaction, whereby users specify language and actions to a particular recipient, or multiple recipients. In summation, and with regard to crimes against children, Shaughessy notes that if such a recipient is a child, “the child has suffered from the very type of harm the criminal law intends to prevent” (Shaughnessy).

--------------------------

Boellstorff, Tom. 2008. Coming of Age in Second Life: An Anthropologist Explores the Virtually Human. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Shaughnessy, Joan. “Protecting Virtual Playgrounds: Children, Law, and Play Online.” Washington & Lee Law Review, 66 Wash & Lee L. Rev. 995, Summer 2009, accessed April 28, 2012.

Suzor, Nicolas. “Order Supported by Law: The Enforcement of Rules in Online Communities.” Mercer Law Review, 63 Mercer L. Rev. 523, Winter 2012, accessed April 28, 2012.

Virtual Ethics, Pt. 4: Virtual Cause, Actual Effect

Note: I apologize for not posting in some time. I took a much needed vacation, which was immediately followed by an increased work load and a 4-hour class 4 nights a week. I'm hoping to be a little more consistent with posts going forward.
-----------------------------------------------------

While many participants in virtual communities seek to avoid the pressures of the actual world by escaping into virtual ones, there is no real assurance that crossover between the virtual and actual does not exist. In truth, the two could never fully be isolated. As was described in the David DiSalvo quote in a previous post, the brain cannot exclusively separate the two worlds, and thus, humans acting in virtual environment are inherently influenced by their actual world experiences, and vice versa. The same can be said of the various environments in which we find ourselves throughout our actual world experiences: experience gathered in one role in one environment can, and likely will, influence the roles we take on in other environments. For example, our work lives and our social lives are constantly impeded upon by each other: stress from work is brought home and directed at our spouse; family health problems impact our attitude in the workplace; a previous sexual assault incident increases discomfort with a touchy co-worker, etc. Similarly, undesirable actions against a virtual world participant while in their virtual environment, or involving their virtual environment, can manifest actual world effects.

The first thing to consider is the attachment that a person has to their avatar. The avatar is not simply a character that one plays in an unattached arcade game. The avatar is a representation of that person, or a part of that person. As Boellstorff experienced, avatars “were not just abstract anchors of virtual perspective; they were the modality through which residents experienced virtual selfhood” (Boellstorff 129). The interactions and experiences that people enjoyed while in Second Life were enjoyed through their avatars. Early on in their experience, the feelings may be more nurturing, such as with a parent-child or creator-creation relationship, but as involvement in the virtual community increases in volume and importance, the feelings can become more intimate and personal. In short, “people have a very proprietary feeling towards their image. What happens to it happens to them. What touches it, they feel…” (Boellstorff 127-128). As expected, then, when an avatar is abused or harassed, it is felt by the person who is controlling the avatar, if not on a physical level, then on an emotional one.

Julian Dibbell recalls one famous case in his essay “A Rape in Cyberspace,” available on his website and originally published in The Village Voice in 1993. The assault took place in a text-based virtual world known as LambdaMOO, where an avatar called Mr. Bungle used a malicious program to control the actions of other users, “forcing” them to perform sexual acts on him, themselves, and others (Dibbell 11-32). While it is difficult to draw physical similarities between real world and virtual world rape, it is not unlikely that users experienced real psychological and emotional trauma as a result of Mr. Bungle’s actions. Granted, this kind of activity is probably not very common, and when users do attempt to control others’ avatars, the governing bodies, such as Linden Labs, are likely quick to regulate such behavior. In reading Boellstorff’s descriptions of communities, however, it becomes clear that virtual sexual assault is not the only problem.

Sexual and other forms of verbal harassment are common problems. In virtual worlds, the term “griefing” is used to describe the act of disrupting other players’ in-world experience (Boellstorff 187). Griefing comes in many forms: harassment, homophobia, racism, misogyny, the above-described sexual assault and more. Because most, if not all, of these actions involve the use of language as a weapon, it is important to note that the use of language, both good and bad, does not, and by its nature, cannot stay in the virtual world. It transcends into the actual world lives of those who take it in. As Boellstorff notes, language “has always been virtual; it is thus a key element…that both constitutes and bridges the gap between virtual and actual” (Boellstorff 151). Thus, when a user comes across hate speech or homophobic slurs in virtual worlds, the psychological effects impact their actual psyche.

Unfortunately, there is no shortage of this kind of material in virtual worlds. Boellstorff explains that “one could find events like ‘Slave Auctions’ where residents could sell themselves into slavery” and that a user could come across the “construction of an ‘SS Training Camp’” (Boellstorff 146). The phenomenon is nothing new: Colin Beckles wrote of racism targeting black people on the Internet back in the late 90s in “Black Struggles in Cyberspace: Cyber-Segregation and Cyber-Nazis,” published in The Western Journal of Black Studies (1997). In terms of homophobia, Boellstorff claims that it “is far from unknown online (one study found over 80 percent of gamers encountering homophobic speech [Glover 2007]),” despite the existence of a “long tradition of cyber-libertarian tolerance” (Boellstorff 165). None of this is particularly surprising, given that race-, gender-, and sexual orientation-related crime and intolerance are rampant in the actual world, even in the West.

As the above information purports, the fundamental element of virtual world ethics is that there is a strong crossover to the actual world. Through the use of language, the attachment of a person to their avatar and the simple fact that our brains are not capable of discerning between what is virtually real and what is actually real, the link between the two worlds has been built and continues to be buttressed. Furthermore, the emotional connections between virtual world users and the psychological investments into in-world interactions may be more intense than the average actual world connection. “As one resident put it: ‘in real life, you get to know someone from the outside in, but in Second Life you get to know them from the inside out’” (Boellstorff 159). This reverse relationship-building encourages users to operate with their vulnerabilities exposed—a prime target for assailants.

-----------------------------------------------------

Dibbell, Julian. 1998. “A Rape in Cyberspace.” My Tiny Life: Crime and Passion in a Virtual World. New York: Henry Holt and Company.

Beckles, Colin. “Black Struggles in Cyberspace: Cyber-Segregation and Cyber Nazis.” The Western Journal of Black Studies, Vol. 21, No. 1, 1997, 12-19.