|
>
> |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="FirstPaper" |
|---|
Rationalizing Contempt
Emotions and Social Control
In our discussion of "law as the weakest form of social control," we considered why certain social issues were consistent points of tension. Issues like gay marriage and abortion remain wedge issues, causing some people to vote against their own interests. The emotional power of politics and campaigns is acknowledged, but seems to be only superficially understood. Fear of change, anger, and shame may explain certain reactions to social policy. Disgust is likely a better explanation of why certain issues gain cultural acceptance over time. Martha Nussbaum has written at length about disgust as a basis for anti-homosexual laws. Acceptance of gay marriage, for example, has likely increased over time since most young people, in contrast to older generations, do not experience the same reaction of disgust at the idea of gay relationships. As cultural ideas of disgust change, so do the laws that are grounded in that emotion.
Beyond Fear and Disgust
Fear and disgust, however, do not seem as effective in explaining opposition to reproductive issues such as contraception and abortion. These issues are, obviously, linked to heterosexual, procreative sex. But reproductive sex cannot illicit the same disgust response – we know it doesn't since people who express vocal opposition to abortion and birth control often have children. 99% of women will use a form of birth control at some point in their lives. Given this percentage, it seems unlikely that disgust towards procreative sex can explain the backlash against the birth control coverage mandate in The Affordable Care Act. Abortion is an issue that is more likely to be subject to disgust-based laws, based on differing views about the beginning of life. However, given that laws limiting abortion and birth control are frequently discussed together, discussing the rhetoric and rationalizations surrounding both is helpful. So, what is it about reproductive issues that make them such ripe targets for vicious opposition?
Religious Explanations
One obvious explanation is religion. Opposition to birth control and abortion are often explained by a reliance on religious texts and dogma. However, this is likely too simplistic. Major religions are certainly not monolithic. For example, Christianity, in its many incarnations, varies widely on birth control. And abortion has not always been prohibited in the Catholic church. Even within Catholicism, opposition to birth control is not widespread in practice. To say that religion is solely behind hostility to contraception is to give religion too much credit. Despite religious differences on the issue, religious freedom is currently being used to rationalize (largely symbolic) amendments allowing conscience and moral exceptions to the birth control mandate. The religious freedom argument becomes another form of "transcendental nonsense." It becomes a pretext for the functional consequences of denying birth control coverage.
Political Culture
Political differences are also used to explain resistance to contraception. The conservative-liberal divide is cited as a justification for virulent objections to contraceptives. However, with birth control usage being so widespread, I find it unlikely that the political spectrum is neatly divided into pro- and anti- birth control camps.
Progressive versus conservative ideals may have a part to play, but again, that alone would not explain why reproductive rights have remained so divisive. Conservatism, in its true form of supporting limited government, cannot explain why reproduction is often an acceptable site of government intervention.
Contempt and Reproductive Rights
Instead, I think objections to birth control are likely based, in part, on a more basic human reaction: contempt. By contempt, I mean a lack of respect based on a perception of inferiority or unworthiness. Like derision and scorn, contempt connotes responding negatively - in this case, to a personal failure. Contempt is linked, but ultimately different from disgust. Disgust evokes a visceral, gut reaction of revulsion. Contempt results from a judgment that a person has failed to meet a standard of some kind.
If we look at debates over contraception and abortion with an eye towards identifying contempt, a pattern emerges in the rhetoric of people opposed to birth control in all forms.
People who use birth control are regarded with contempt because they have not met a cultural/religious/social standard (more likely, a myth) of sex being confined to procreation within marriage. In the marital context, procreation, intentional or not, is regarded with higher esteem. This view of sex relies on an idea that denies some basic realities about human sexuality, yet it persists.
Likewise, people who have or perform abortions are regarded with contempt, 1) because the sex that caused the pregnancy may have occurred outside of marriage, and 2) because termination of a pregnancy negates the procreative aspect (and supposed goal) of sex.
Additionally, legislation and rhetoric about reproduction takes a paternalistic view of women. Laws restricting abortion, including mandatory ultrasound regulations and waiting periods, start off with the view that a woman cannot fully comprehend the gravity of her decision. Paternalism easily crosses over into contempt when the woman seeking an abortion is portrayed in culture as someone flippant about the procedure and her sexual activities.
Contempt for contraception and abortion relies on a judgment that people who partake in these methods of birth control are somehow inferior in their practices. Given the realities about high percentages of birth control usage and sexual activity before marriage, contempt based restrictions and laws rely on rationalization and distancing. Lawmakers and voters are able to support these harsh restrictions by distancing supposed "promiscuous" or "immoral" sexual practices from a cultural ideal/myth about sex that they align themselves with. Attributing the rise of birth control usage to "liberals" or "radical feminists" instead of realities about the connection between reproductive autonomy and women's advancement creates a divide that allows laws based partly on contempt for female sexuality.
Examining Justifications
While current proposed amendments cite religious freedom as the basis for denying birth control coverage, these claims are partially rationalizations for contempt towards contraception, abortion, and the reproductive autonomy of women. (982 words)
-- By JacquelineRios - 16 Feb 2012
You are entitled to restrict access to your paper if you want to. But we all derive immense benefit from reading one another's work, and I hope you won't feel the need unless the subject matter is personal and its disclosure would be harmful or undesirable.
To restrict access to your paper simply delete the "#" character on the next two lines:
Note: TWiki has strict formatting rules for preference declarations. Make sure you preserve the three spaces, asterisk, and extra space at the beginning of these lines. If you wish to give access to any other users simply add them to the comma separated ALLOWTOPICVIEW list. |
|