色情媒介及其效果：閱聽人研究的再省思

Pornography and Its Effects: Rethinking Audience Studies

本研究探討色情媒介的效果，並將其置放在閱聽人研究的整體架構之內，比較實證主義行為學派與女性主義文化研究兩種不同的取向。本文第一節介紹有關色情的論述與爭議。宗教與衛道人士從維護善良風俗的立場，對色情持反對態度並主張對色情嚴格管制。自由主義者基於言論自由的理念，反對對色情的限制及相關之審檢制度(censorship)。基進派女性主義者則主張色情是男性宰制的表現。本文第二節提出行為學派對色情效果的研究發現。這些發現包括：強化觀眾的強暴迷思、對暴力產生麻木反應、對性伴侶的外表較為不滿。本文第三節指出，色情的效果研究應擴及整個閱聽解讀流程，包含下列四大面向：閱聽情境、文本內容、解讀方式、意識形態效果。女性主義精神分析提出男性凝視（male gaze)的概念，指出色情強化男性觀看女性的主體的位置，使得男性缺乏觀看自己、觀看男人、成為女人觀看對象的經驗。男性主體性因為缺乏參考座標而形成男性自閉。女性主義精神分析與文化研究的觀點，可說是將媒介效果加以擴充，涵蓋整個視覺文化所產生之意識形態效果。本文最後指出，在制定媒介公共政策時，色情應否管制，其關鍵並非搜集有關色情造成傷害的科學證據，而是價值選擇的考量。

This paper examines the effects of pornography. I put effects research within the entire framework of audience studies, comparing the differences of two research paradigms - behavioralism and feminist cultural studies. In the first part of this paper, I introduce various positions and perspectives concerning the pornography debate. The religious position is opposed to pornography on the ground of upholding morality and social order. Liberalism speaks for freedom of speech, thereby endorsing the existence of pornography and criticizing the practice of censorship. Radical feminism asserts that pornography expresses male domination. In The second part of this paper, the research findings of behavioral studies are examined. These findings point out that pornography has the following effects on audience: reinforcing rape myth; being desensitized to violence; less satisfied with the appearance of one's own partner. The third part of this paper advocates a broader scope of audience studies, including four dimensions: context, text, decoding, ideological effects. Using the concept of the male gaze developed by feminist psychoanalysis, I argue that pornography reinforces men's active looking position, thereby depriving them of haveing the experiences of looking at men and being looked at by women. The ideological effects of pornogrophy is conceptualised as aggravating male solipsism, which lacks the experience of inter-subjectivity. Finally, this paper argues that, in dealing with issues of media regulation and policy, the focus should be on negotiations and choices of values, rather than on accumulating evidence of harm as is narraowly defined by positivist science.