Advertisement

Advantages and Disadvantages of Pop-Cultural Artifacts for Exploring Bioethical Issues

  • Sandra ShapshayEmail author
Chapter

Abstract

For the past several decades, popular culture, especially feature films and television, has been utilized with increasing frequency in bioethics teaching and reflection. This seems quite fitting, for, in the words of cultural historian and film critic Leo Braudy, even more than standard newspaper articles and other analytical texts, popular culture constitutes a “sounding board or lightning rod for deep-rooted audience concerns” (Braudy L. The genre of nature. In: Browne N (ed) Refiguring American film genres. University of California Press, Berkeley, pp 278–309, 1998). Further, many audience concerns in advanced-capitalist societies relate to the promises and perils of science and technology in general and biomedicine in particular. In this essay, I offer an overview of the advantages and disadvantages of utilizing popular culture for bioethical reflection and pedagogy, and provide a framework for thinking through the promises and pitfalls of popular culture for researchers, teachers and practitioners of bioethics and biomedicine.

References

  1. Althusser L. 1971. Lenin and philosophy and other essays. Trans. B. Brewster. New York: Monthly Review Press.Google Scholar
  2. Aristotle. 1984. Poetics. In The complete works of Aristotle, ed. J. Barnes, vols. I and II. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Braudy, L. 1998. The genre of nature. In Refiguring American film genres, ed. Nick Browne, 278–309. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  4. Carroll, N. 1998. Art, narrative and moral understanding. In Aesthetics and ethics: Essays at the intersection, ed. Jerrold Levinson, 126–160. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. ———. 2000. Art and ethical criticism. Ethics 110: 350–387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. ———. 2002. The wheel of virtue: Art, literature and moral knowledge. The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 60 (1): 3–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Danto, Arthur. 1983. The transfiguration of the commonplace. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Dewey, John. 1934. Art as experience. London: Penguin.Google Scholar
  9. Dubos, Abbé Jean-Baptiste. 1748. Critical reflections on poetry, painting and music. Trans. T. Nugent (London). New York: AMS Press, 1978.Google Scholar
  10. Frowe, H. 2009. ‘I can’t be like this, Frankie, not after what I’ve done’: Million Dollar Baby and the value of human lives. In Bioethics at the movies, ed. Sandra Shapshay, 242–255. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Gaut, B. 2006. Art and cognition. In Contemporary debates in aesthetics and the philosophy of art, ed. Matthew Kieran. Malden: Blackwell Pub.Google Scholar
  12. ———. 2007. Art, emotion and ethics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gendler, T. 2000. The puzzle of imaginative resistance. The Journal of Philosophy 97 (2): 55–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gibson, J. 2008. Cognitivism and the arts. Philosophy Compass 3: 1–17. Available at http://philpapers.org/archive/GIBCAT-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Guyer, P. 2013. Monism and pluralism in the history of aesthetics. The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 71 (2): 133–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Huxley, A. 1932. Brave new world. London: Chatto & Windus.Google Scholar
  17. Kant, Immanuel. 2000. Critique of the power of judgment, ed. Paul Guyer and Trans. Paul Guyer and Eric Matthews. Cambridge: Cambridge Univeristy Press.Google Scholar
  18. Kieran, Matthew. 2003. Forbidden knowledge: The challenge of immoralism. In Art and morality, ed. José Luis Bermúdez and Sebastian Gardner. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  19. Kivy, P. 1997. Philosophies of arts: An essay in differences. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Klinger, B. 2012. ‘Cinema/Ideology/Criticism’ revisited: The progressive genre. In Film genre reader IV, ed. Barry Keith Grant, 93–109. Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
  21. Levinson, J. 1997. Music and negative emotion. In Music and meaning, ed. Jenefer Robinson, 215–241. Ithaca/London: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Lutfiyya, Z.M., K. Schwartz, and N. Hansen. 2009. False images: Reframing end-of-life portrayal of disability in Million Dollar Baby. In Bioethics at the movies, ed. Sandra Shapshay, 225–241. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  23. McConnell, T. 2009. ‘She’s DNR! She’s Research’: Conflicting role-related obligations in Wit. In Bioethics at the movies, ed. Sandra Shapshay, 186–200. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Mulhall, S. 2007. Film as philosophy: The very idea. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 107 (1): 279–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Nagel, T. 1974. What is it like to be a bat? The Philosophical Review 83 (4): 435–450.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Nussbaum, M. 1990. Love’s knowledge: Essays on philosophy and literature. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  27. ———. 1996. Poetic justice: The literary imagination and public life. Boston: Beacon Press.Google Scholar
  28. Shapshay, S. 2009. Bioethics at the movies. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  29. ———. 2012. The problem with the problem of tragedy: Schopenhauer’s solution revisited. British Journal of Aesthetics 52: 17–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Smith M. 2006. Film art, argument, and ambiguity. Special issue of The Journal of Aesthetics and art Criticism on Thinking through cinema: Film as philosophy, ed. Murray Smith and Thomas E. Wartenberg, 64 (1): 33–42.Google Scholar
  31. Stolnitz, J. 1992. On the cognitive triviality of art. British Journal of Aesthetics 32 (3): 191–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Thomson, J.J. 1971. A defense of abortion. Philosophy and Public Affairs 1 (1): 57–72.Google Scholar
  33. Tolstoy, Leo (1899) “What is Art?” In What is art and essays on art, ed. Louise and Aylmer Maude and trans by Aylmer Maude. London: Brotherhood Publishing Co.Google Scholar
  34. Wright, J.H. 2012. Genre films and the status quo. In Film genre reader IV, ed. Barry Keith Grant, 60–68. Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
  35. Walton, K. 1993. Mimesis as make-believe: On the foundations of the representational arts. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  36. Young, James O. 1999. The cognitive value of music. The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 57: 1, Winter.Google Scholar

Media

  1. 2001: A Space Odyssey. Dir. Kubrick S. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer. 1968.Google Scholar
  2. Babe. Dir. Noonan C. Universal Pictures. 1995.Google Scholar
  3. Blade Runner. Dir. Scott R. Warner Bros. 1982.Google Scholar
  4. The Cider House Rules. Dir. Hallström L. Film Colony. 1999).Google Scholar
  5. Citizen Ruth. Dir. Payne A. Independent Pictures. 1996.Google Scholar
  6. Ex Machina. Dir. Garland A. Film4; DNA Films. 2015.Google Scholar
  7. Gattaca. Dir. Niccol A. Columbia Pictures. 1997.Google Scholar
  8. Grey’s Anatomy. Creat. Rimes S. ABC Studios. 2005–.Google Scholar
  9. Her. Dir. Jonze S. Annapuma Pictures. 2013.Google Scholar
  10. The Hunger Games. Dir. Ross G. Lionsgate Films. 2012.Google Scholar
  11. I am Sam. Dir. Nelson J. The Bedford Falls Company. 2001.Google Scholar
  12. I, Robot Dir. Proyas A. Mediastream IV; Dacis Entertainment Company; Lawrence Mark Productions; Overbrook Films. 2004.Google Scholar
  13. To Kill and Mockingbird. Dir. Mulligan R. Universal International Pictures. 1962.Google Scholar
  14. Million Dollar Baby. Dir. Eastwood C. Warner Bros; Lakeshore Entertainment. 2004.Google Scholar
  15. Multiplicity. Dir. Ramis H. Columbia Pictures Corporation. 1996.Google Scholar
  16. Star Trek: Nemesis. Dir. Baird S. Paramount Pictures. 2002.Google Scholar
  17. Transcendence. Dir. Pfister W. Alcon Entertainment; DMG Entertainment; Straight Up Films. 2014.Google Scholar
  18. Wit. Dir. Nichols M. Avenue Pictures Productions. 2001.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyIndiana UniversityBloomingtonUSA

Personalised recommendations