From 2017... From paranoid readings to post-capitalist futures: Move away from a capitalocentric understanding of online pornography towards a 'diverse economies' approach

From 2017... The diverse economies of online pornography: From paranoid readings to post-capitalist futures. Eleanor Wilkinson. Sexualities, Feb 8 2017. https://doi.org/10.1177/1363460716675141

Abstract: Anti-pornography campaigners have frequently claimed that porn studies need to take the economics of pornography seriously, yet often this amounts to little more than the idea that pornography is a capitalist product. This article brings together J.K Gibson-Graham’s work on post capitalism and Eve Sedgwick’s notion of ‘paranoid’ and ‘reparative’ reading in order to think about the performative effects of the narratives we use to talk about the pornography industry. It proposes a move away from a capitalocentric understanding of online pornography towards a ‘diverse economies’ approach: one that demonstrates the multitude of ways in which pornography exists outside of the rubric of capitalism. This helps to avoid the affective state of paranoia and helplessness that narratives of the all-powerful global porn industry so often create, whilst also allowing for a more nuanced understanding of the legal regulation of pornography. The article concludes with some thoughts as to how a diverse economies approach might better enable us to assess recent attempts to regulate online pornography within Britain, noting attempts at regulation may have an adverse effect on not-for-profit, amateur, or peer-to-peer pornography, whilst benefiting mainstream corporate pornography producers.

Keywords: Capitalism, censorship, economics, feminism, internet

Reparative readings and regulation

In order to think through what a more reparative reading of pornography might look like I turn to the work of J.K Gibson-Graham (1995, 1996, 2002, 2006). Like Sedgwick, Gibson-Graham helps us to think seriously about the performativity of knowledge; the stories we tell, how we envision power, and where we see resistance. What Gibson-Graham provide is a framework for a ‘post-capitalist’ politics – one that takes our research beyond a paranoid critique of global capitalism, towards a more reparative affirmation of non-capitalist, anti-capitalist, or not quite capitalist alternatives. A post-capitalist politics moves beyond a paranoid reading (one that simply highlights how powerful global capitalism is) to instead explore different types of non-capitalist economies. Gibson-Graham seek to generate a non-capitalocentric understanding of the economy by making non-capitalist activities both ‘visible and viable in the economic terrain’ (2002: 36). However, they ask us to do much more than simply acknowledge economic diversity. Rather, they propose a reevaluation of the ways in which global capitalism is so often positioned as unquestionably more powerful than non-capitalist alternatives. They challenge the stories in circulation about the relentless power of global capitalism, and contest the commonly held notion ‘that the force of globalization [is] inevitably more powerful than progressive, grassroots, local interventions’ (Gibson-Graham, 2002: 25). Thus a post-capitalist approach to pornography would aim to see the global pornography industry as a ‘hegemonic formation rather than as a fixed capitalist totality’ (Gibson-Graham, 1995: 275). Our political goal is therefore to destabilize the presumptions about the all-encompassing power of corporate global pornography. If the global power of porn is constructed and reproduced discursively, then we can see that an attempt to reassert porn as always capitalistic/always exploitative is deeply problematic. Gibson-Graham’s work helps to highlight how a capitalocentric approach to online pornography inadvertently helps to reinforce the power of the global the porn industry. Likewise, a capitalocentric approach will inevitably fail to recognize the non-capitalist economic exchanges that exist, and thrive, within cyberspace: for example, DIY amateur pornography, free pornography, pirated pornography, not-for-profit pornography, charity pornography, eco-pornography, ethical pornography and pornography cooperatives (Bell, 2010; Jacobs, 2007). Gibson-Graham’s work demonstrates how these marginalized economic alternatives to capitalist pornography production should never be dismissed as irrelevant or somehow separate from the ‘critical macro-level approach’ that scholars such as Dines (2011) are calling for. We hence need to challenge the idea that all online pornography is simply at the mercy of a (so-called) global pornography industry. That is, to envision these economic alternatives as potential sites of resistance, a place from which the apparent hegemony of the global commercial pornography industry can be challenged.

So what would it mean to begin to take seriously forms of pornography production and consumption that run counter to, or directly challenge, capitalist power? A diverse economies approach helps avoid the affective state of helplessness that the narratives of the all-powerful global porn industry so often create. Gibson-Graham argues that a diverse economies approach provides a kind of ‘performative ontological reframing’ that allows us to build upon and develop new spaces of resistance. By speaking of economic diversity we can ‘cultivate an unconscious in which dreams, fantasies, and desires for noncapitalist forms of economic organization might take shape and circulate’ (Gibson-Graham, 2002: 44). Thus a capitalocentric approach to pornography is deeply pessimistic and fails to see the multitude of ways in which people are creating alternative sexual scripts that do not necessarily always serve in the interests of patriarchy or capital (Jacobs, 2007; Jacobs et al., 2007). A diverse economies approach allows us to challenge narratives about the seemingly never-ending profitability of the porn industry. Such a framework opens up space for us to consider the ways in which non-capitalist, anticapitalist and only-slightly capitalist pornography may be having significantly detrimental impacts on the profits of pornography producers who operate within the commercial mainstream. Hence any attempt to reduce our understanding of pornography down to solely a capitalist product will fail to understand this complex varied economic landscape, and the pleasures (and dangers)13 that this might offer.

One other final area where a diverse economies approach could provide a useful framework for the study of pornography, is around issues of regulation and censorship. If we were to see all pornography as a uniform capitalist product, we risk making unhelpful generalizations that portray all pornography as a danger that should be curtailed because it always involves exploitative capitalist patriarchal relations. A diverse economies approach would allow us to challenge such logic and enable us to examine whether certain forms of regulation are intended to have a more adverse effect on specific forms of pornography (e.g. not-for-profit or pirated peer-to-peer pornography). By paying attention to the diverse economies of online pornography we could explore whether some mainstream pornography producers might in fact support certain forms of government regulation (see Stardust, 2014; Wilkinson, 2011). Thus a diverse economies approach to 10 Sexualities 0(0) pornography allows us to examine whether regulation may at times work in the interests of capital and the mainstream porn industry, not against (Maddison, 2004, 2010).

This type of perspective can be explored with reference to attempts to regulate online pornography in England and Wales via measures such as the ‘Dangerous Pictures Act’ (Section 63 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008) which made it illegal to possess certain forms of ’extreme’ pornography. There has also been stricter regulations around video-on-demand material via an amendment to the 2003 Communications Act (Audiovisual Media Services Regulations, 2014), which made this material subject to obscenity law. The Digital Economy Bill (2016–2017) is currently passing through Parliament, and seeks to ban material that wouldn’t be available on commercial DVD. Effectively is about making sure that all online material is now subject to British obscenity law, thus making it illegal to distribute images of certain pornographic acts online (see Attwood and Smith, 2010; P Johnson 2010; Petley, 2014). Anti-pornography campaigners have tended to support these measures, as they are seen to be sending out a strong message about the increasingly easy access to ‘extreme’ online pornography.

The economic implications of these laws have yet to be given sufficient scrutiny, with debates about their implementation tending to fall back into the tired dichotomy of pleasure versus danger (Wilkinson, 2011). Arguments in support of these new legal frameworks failed to examine exactly what kind of material was going to be captured under these laws. What has subsequently ensued is that mainstream commercial pornography has been largely exempt from these regulations, given there are a number of steps large-scale commercial producers can take to make sure their material is still legal to distribute and consume. For example, in 2008, the British Board of Film Classification (BBFC) introduced a new scheme that would enable webmasters to get online audiovisual material officially classified.14 However, this online digital classification system is an expensive solution15, and therefore will only be an option for larger-scale profit-driven producers. Strictly Broadband, one of the UKs largest adult Video-on-Demand sites, was the first to sign up to the BBFC online R18 classification system. The managing director of Strictly Broadband outlines some of the reasons his company joined this new scheme:

We welcome the clarification that the new scheme will bring to the business, which will allow the further development of a strong and legal British adult entertainment industry, and give British consumers the ability to decide whether they are buying legal material or not.16

The BBFC scheme assures viewers that the material they are watching falls within the boundaries of British law. This will have potential economic benefits for mainstream British porn producers and distributors, as it may create a new market of online consumers who are seeking reassurance that their online porn-consumption is legal to view. Stricter regulations around the legalities of online pornography Wilkinson may also channel people back from ‘pirate’ or ‘amateur’ to mainstream sites, with the former becoming seen as potentially illegal not just in terms of the means of exchange (i.e. copyright) but also the type of content. Furthermore, the 2014 Video-On-Demand regulation continued to benefit mainstream British producers, as small-scale and amateur producers in the UK were no longer allowed to contravene obscenity law. Britain already has some of the strictest obscenity laws in Europe, and therefore these new laws can be seen to offer a degree of protection for corporate British producers, from competition faced from the online influx of extreme material produced online in both Britain and abroad (see Maddison, 2004). Hence laws and controls that we think might be sending out a strong ‘anti-pornography’ moral message might in fact be supporting the economic power of a select few mainstream pornography businesses. Yet, if we were to see pornography as solely a capitalist entity then we would miss these crucial complexities.