212
SUSAN SONTAG
we have in the present mass availability of other kinds of knowl–
edge, in our optimistic acquiescence in the transformation of and
extension of human capacities by machines. Pornography is only
one item among the many dangerous commodities being circulated
in this society; unattractive as it may
be,
it's probably one of the less
lethal, the less costly to the community in terms of human suffering.
Except perhaps in a small circle of writer-intellectuals in France,
pornography is an inglorious and mostly despised department of the
imagination. Its mean status is the very antithesis of the considerable
spiritual prestige enjoyed by many items which are far more noxious.
In the last analysis, the place we assign to pornography depends
on the goals we set for our own consciousness, our own experience.
But the goal A subscribes to for his consciousness may
not
be one he's
pleased to see B adopt, because he judges that B isn't qualified or
experienced or subtle enough. And B may be dismayed and even
indignant at A's adopting goals that he himself professes; when A
holds them, they become presumptuous or shallow. Surely this chronic
mutual suspicion of our neighbor's capacities-suggesting, in effect,
a hierarchy of competence with respect to human consciousness–
won't ever be settled to everyone's satisfaction. When the quality of
people's consciousness varies so greatly, how could it ever be?
In an essay on the subject some years ago, Paul Goodman wrote :
"The question is not
whether
pornography, but the quality of the
pornography." That's exactly right. One could extend the thought
a good deal further. The question is not
whether
consciousness or
whether
knowledge, but the quality of the consciousness and of the
knowledge. And that invites consideration of the quality or fineness
of the human subject-the most problematic standard of all. It
doesn't seem inaccurate to say most people in this society who aren't
actively mad are, at best, reformed or potential lunatics. But is any–
one supposed to act on this knowledge, even genuinely live with it?
If
so many are teetering on the verge of murder, dehumanization,
sexual deformity and despair, and we were to act on that thought,
then censorship much more radical than the indignant critics of por–
nography ever envisage seems in order. For if that's the case, not only
pornography but all forms of serious art and knowledge- in other
words, all forms of truth- are suspect and dangerous.
