Disparate Reflexions

The Conscious corrects the Unconscious: In my view, the theory Laura Mulvey puts forth in Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema discredits the viewers as rational beings. In order to give consistency to her argument about “the pleasurable structures of looking” (Mulvey, 202), Mulvey over-emphasizes the unconscious as the “seat” of self formation – the premise for her thesis that traditional Hollywood cinema induces narcissistic scopophilia (identification). Even though I do not wish to reiterate the (somewhat exaggerated) Enlightenment emphasis on reason and on the human beings as fundamentally rational, I want to argue that, in rational beings, the conscious corrects the unconscious. Identification might occur at the level of the unconscious as a result of the manipulative pleasure-related strategies employed in traditional Hollywood cinema as industry, but the conscious has the ability (and task!) to denounce and correct it.

Mulvey’s Argument and Psychoanalysis: An Irony: As Prof. Chun mentioned in the lecture, Mulvey’s appropriation of psychoanalytic theory “as a political weapon” (Mulvey, 198) in her argument corresponds to an acceptance and employment of Freud’s theories of sexuality – in support of her point about scopophilia/voyeurism, and of Lacan’s rereading of Freud – as far as her identification/narcissism theory is concerned. The most disturbing of these and a potential flaw in Mulvey’s argument is, in my view, a recognition and acceptance of Freudian psychoanalysis. For me, Freud’s theories of sexuality represent an attempted “scientific” legitimation of the status quo (of the 20^th century), of a dominant patriarchal system. For example, discussing self formation in terms of absence/loss and attributing the eternal absence to women, who can only “live with it” if they procreate – and more so, if the baby is male, appears to provide a solid justification for a socially enforced inferior status for women.

Mulvey fights against precisely this patriarchal system and its mechanisms, but does so – ironically – by giving credit to the “enemy”. The contradiction appears to me irresolvable: either one accepts Freud’s theories of sexuality and recognizes the pleasure formation structures in classic cinema as natural, or one denounces these manipulative political mechanisms and Freud’s theories with them.

An Ethics of Looking/Watching:

(1) In her essay, Mulvey mentions “the moral ambiguity of looking” (Mulvey, 207).

(2) At different points in Hitchcock’s Rear Window, both Stella and Lisa scold Jeff for his voyeuristic tendencies.

(3) When, in King Kong, the photographers – invited by Denham – take pictures of Ann and Kong at the New York “premiere” of the "live King Kong", and Kong begins stirring, Denham comments: “Hold on, hold on! He thinks you’re attacking the girl.”… and isn’t that correct? Does not the "look" of the photographers – mediated by the camera – actually harm the girl?

The above instances support, in my view, the idea that there are serious ethical issues at stake in looking/watching. For this reason, in place of Mulvey’s, Cowie’s, and Snead’s cultural and political readings of watching and of classical cinema, I propose an approach to looking/watching based on an exploration of its ethical dimension. I believe that an ethics of looking/watching would solve many tensions and issues in the debate over the classic cinema and its strategies in the postmodern age, issues that, so far, have only been addressed at the level of culture and politics. A possible option in this respect could be, in my view, that of applying Kant’s categorical imperative to the phenomenon of seeing/watching.