V2G y los servicios auxiliares de red (servicios TS)

We can see an example of objectification in the case of Linda Lovelace. While, as documented previously, Linda’s story proved beneficial for anti-pornography feminists building their case, the outcome for Linda was starkly different to the outcome for those who promoted her story.

Linda experienced severe financial hardship after she left the pornography industry and worked with the anti-pornography feminist movement, and complained that:

Between Andrea Dworkin and Kitty MacKinnon, they’ve written so many books, and they mention my name and all that, but financially they’ve never helped me out.

When I showed up with them for speaking engagements, I’d always get five hundred dollars or so. But I know they made a few bucks off me, just like everyone else (McNeill and Osbourne, 2005, p.439).

Linda’s experience raises questions about the ethics of telling other people's stories, especially when money and power are involved, and when the telling of the story increases career opportunities for the teller but not the person whose story is being told. In this case Linda outlines how the power lays with Dworkin and MacKinnon who benefitted from her story, and goes on to state: ‘I guess I’m more disappointed in the Women's Movement than anything’

(Sullivan and McKee, 2015 p.161). In Linda’ eyes, the women's movement abandoned her after using her story for their own goals, and she was left to move on with life by herself. It was a process that objectified Linda and positioned her as a mere tool to use in the feminist war on pornography; objectifying her through instrumentality, fungability, and a denial of subjectivity.

This did not go unnoticed by pornography producer Candida Royalle who stated ‘’It infuriated me that Women Against Pornography (WAP) would take this deeply troubled, traumatized woman and just basically use her for the movement’ (Porter, 2013, p.604).

At the end of her life, Linda's views on pornography changed, where she became more accepting of it. She outlines her change of mind:

Although hundreds will follow after me, I was the original porn queen. I legitimised pornography for better or worse, even though I campaigned against it for years. But in the final years of my life, as I set out to capitalise off my porn past, I have become more tolerant as I talked to hundreds of Americans and came to see that in some cases, porn enriched their lives and even saved their marriages. It's got its bad points, God knows, but what doesn’t? (Porter, 2013, p.618).

While Linda’s experience of being the ‘original porn queen’ changed her life in many ways, it is notable that while she returned to the industry in order to survive, those who told her story did not have equitable economic experiences. In fact, Dworkin went on to dismiss Linda’s change of mind, stating that:

Thank God for freshmen who hadn’t heard the story of her past before. Otherwise, Linda had nothing new to say, no new insights. She hadn’t grown like some of us (Porter, 2013, p.614).

Linda’s experiences post Deep Throat also includes escaping from a husband she accuses of domestic violence, addiction, and multiple rapes when people in her town found out who she was, forcing her to move over and over again, leaving her in poverty (Porter, 2013). It appears Linda’s focus was on surviving and constantly navigating risks of new violence and processing trauma, rather than meeting expectations for her to contribute to anti-pornography discourse.

Thus this expectation for her to ‘grow’ in a way that was acceptable to Dworkin ignored the precarity of Linda’s real life experiences, and ignored the impact of trauma. Dworkin’s belittling of Linda’s journey and change of opinion places her experiences as wrong and Dworkin’s as right. Her claim that Linda had ‘no new insights’ dismisses her observation noted above, and treats her as disposable in favour of those who Dworkin deems to have ‘grown’. Linda was framed as the subaltern, but is now rejected as unknowing. She is precluded from growth and through this relegation, also excluded from expert status.

Given that Linda’s experience in the pornography industry was relatively short lived, it must be asked how many newer insights could she be expected to gain by anti-pornography feminists?

We can also see her being excluded from knowing the truth, which functions as a shutdown of the possibility of multiple truths in favour of Dworkin's own claim to truth. Linda is also objectified through fungability, through her rejection as expert and the subsequent prioritisation of newer stories to continue the campaign against pornography.

Several features of objectification can be seen in this example, from intentional denial of

autonomy, to denial of subjectivity. Epistemological violence can be detected here through Linda’s exclusion from expert status, and placed firmly as Other, and not holding the correct knowledge about pornography. Dworkin’s statement tells us to disregard Linda, who is positioned as not being able to interpret the reality of pornography correctly, and this causes harm as it continues to position non academics as untrustworthy, unintelligent, wrong, and frames performers as other. Chapter Four will explore how epistemological violence plays out through the power dynamics visible in the battle for expert status. In this chapter legitimacy and how it is deployed as a tool in the relationship between power and knowledge in pornography discourse is discussed. Questions arise over whose experience is considered to be legitimate, who challenges this appointment, and how the division between lived experience and theoretical approaches is marked and protected.

2.8. Conclusion

We have seen in this chapter that pornography and violence are a multi-faceted discourse, with many competing narratives and grasps at power present. The ‘porn star’ as celebrity trope is also introduced through an examination of how performers and feminists have discussed the link between victimhood and celebrity. The following chapters will examine this dance between feminism and pornography, primarily in the areas of methodology, the industry, and feminist discourse, using a lens of power and violence. This research also introduces the concept of epistemological violence to pornography studies. By focusing on the issue of performers nuanced experiences of violence, these findings aim to contribute to this under researched and over- postulated area and place these experiences in the wider context of violence and pornography studies. This will contribute to an understanding of how objectification operates within pornography; however, this time the focus is on objectification through discourse as this

is an under researched area.

Chapter 3: Methodology

Methodology in pornography studies is another area that contains competing views and ethical considerations, as this chapter outlines.

3.1. Introduction

This chapter will address the methodology used in this research project and the justifications for this choice. This chapter will also address the justifications for choosing the method of analysis, Foucauldian Discourse Analysis (FDA). In Chapter One concerns relating to methodology in pornography studies were addressed, and in this section this will be explored further. It is important to recognise that the methodology used within research projects can affect the outcome and can highlight or conceal bias. This section will also examine the need for reflexivity to be a central part of pornography research. Research methodology will also be discussed, and the reasons for choosing semi-structured interviews will be explored. Issues of bias and objectivity are rife within pornography studies, as we shall discuss in this chapter when analysing definitions and nuances of power.