Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Seen and Unseen pp 102–129Cite as

Palgrave Macmillan

To See or Not to See: The Plight of the Voyeur

  • Chapter

Abstract

The notion of giving an arm and a leg for a good dinner took a literal turn in a court case in Germany, where it emerged that the guest at a dinner had offered himself as the main course. Apparently, the host took him at his word. This unexpected emergence of cannibalism signified an unpleasant void in the mortal expectations of a culture of postmodernity. The guest eaten had signified consent, so a defence was mounted on the basis of sexual taste and also euthanasia. What seemed a private matter took on unavoidable public dimensions. In the end, the cannibal was found guilty of manslaughter in January 2004.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes and References

  1. David Rowan, ‘Spies Like Us’, The Times Magazine, 13 December 2003, pp. 45–8.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Meaghen Morris cited in Jay, Downcast Eyes, p. 544 and his comment on p. 545.

    Google Scholar 

  3. St Augustine, The Confessions, trans. Maria Boulding (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1996), pp. 144–7.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Ibid., pp. 273–5.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Daniel Albright (ed.), W.B. Yeats: The Poems (London: J.M. Dent, 1990), p. 376. I am very grateful to my colleague, Prof essor Tim Webb, for finding the above for me.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Everett C. Hughes, The Sociological Eye: Selected Papers (Chicago: Aldine Atherton, 1971). See especially the two essays, ‘The Improper Study of Man’ and ‘The Dual Mandate of Social Science: Remarks on the Academic Division of Labour’, pp. 431–42 and 443–54.

    Google Scholar 

  7. For a critique of reliance on the visual, see Anthony Woodiwiss, The Visual in Social Theory (London: The Athlone Press, 2001).

    Google Scholar 

  8. See Elizabeth Chaplin, Sociology and Visual Representation (London: Routledge, 1994), pp. 218–23, for her comments on visual sociology.

    Google Scholar 

  9. See Anna Grimshaw, The Ethnographer’s Eye: Ways of Seeing Modern Anthropology (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001).

    Google Scholar 

  10. Hal Foster (ed.), Vision and Visuality (Seattle: Bay Press, 1986), pp. ix-x.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Georgia Frank, The Memory of the Eyes: Pilgrims to Living Saints in Christian Antiquity (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2000), p. 103.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Amanda Cof fey, The Ethnographic Self Fieldwork and the Representation of Identity (London: Sage, 1999).

    Google Scholar 

  13. Alvin W. Gouldner, The Coming Crisis of Western Sociology (London: Heinemann, 1970), pp. 484–6.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Ibid., p. 490.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Ibid., pp. 509–10.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Malcolm Barnard, Approaches to Understanding Visual Culture (Basingstoke: Palgrave, 2001), pp. 1–2.

    Google Scholar 

  17. See Norman Bryson, Visions and Painting: The Logic of the Gaze (Basingstoke: Macmillan, 1983), pp. 87–131.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Peter Brown, The Body and Society: Men, Women and Sexual Renunciation in Early Christianity (London: Faber & Faber, 1988), p. 331.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Hans Urs von Balthasar, Bernanos: An Existential Existence, trans. Erasmo LeivaMerikakis (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1996), p. 143.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Guy Debord, The Society of the Spectacle, trans. Donald Nicholson-Smith (New York: Zone Books, 1995), p. 12.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Ibid., p. 30.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Ibid., p. 20.

    Google Scholar 

  23. This collection of essays follows cinematic themes. See Fredric Jameson, Signatures of the Visible (New York: Routledge, 1992), p. 1.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Anthony Synnott, ‘The Eye and I: A Sociology of Sight’, International Journal of Politics, Culture and Society, vol. 5, no. 4, 1992, p. 630.

    Google Scholar 

  25. This notion of seeing as reading appears in the context of a set of essays on the pure gaze and art. See Pierre Bourdieu, The Field of Cultural Production, trans. Randal Johnson (Cambridge: Polity Press, 1993), p. 245. See also John Codd, ‘Making Distinctions: The Eye of the Beholder’, in Harker, Mahar and Wilkes (eds), An Introduction to the Work of Pierre Bourdieu, pp. 132–59.

    Google Scholar 

  26. John Urry, The Tourist Gaze (London: Sage, 1990), p. 129.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Ibid., p. 46.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Nicholas Davey, ‘The Hermeneutics of Seeing’, in Ian Heywood and Bany Sandywell (eds), Interpreting Visual Culture: Explorations in the Hermeneutics of the Visual (London: Routledge, 1999), p. 11.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Ibid., p. 22.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Ibid., p. 4.

    Google Scholar 

  31. This is the title of Chapter 4 of Jervis, Exploring the Modern, Chapter 4, pp. 91–116.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Jib Fowles, Advertising and Popular Culture (Thousand Oaks, California: Sage: 1996), p. 14.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Ibid., p. 25.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Robert C. Solomon, Wicked Pleasures: Meditations on the Seven “Deadly” Sins (Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield, 1999), pp. 1–10.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Jackson Toby, ‘Medicalizing Temptation’, The Public Interest, no. 130, Winter 1998, pp. 64–78.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Anthony Giddens, The Transformation of Intimacy: Sexuality, Love & Eroticism in Modern Societies (Cambridge: Polity Press, 1993), pp. 74–81 and pp. 92–6.

    Google Scholar 

  37. See Keith Tester, “‘Bored and Blasé” Television, the Emotions and Georg Simmel’, in Gillian Bendelow and Simon J. Williams (eds), Emotions in Social Life: Critical Themes and Contemporary Issues (London: Routledge, 1998), pp. 83–96. See also his Moral Culture (London: Sage, 1997), especially Introduction and Chapter 1 on indifference.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Timothy Bewes, Cynicism and Postmodernity (London: Verso, 1997), pp. 32–7.

    Google Scholar 

  39. J:K. Huysmans, Against Nature, trans. Robert Baldick (Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1959), p. 108.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Blaise Pascal, Pensees, trans. A.J. Krailsheimer (Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1966), p. 235.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Oscar Wilde, De Prof undis in The Works of Oscar Wilde (London: Galley Press, 1987), p. 857.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Ibid., p. 862.

    Google Scholar 

  43. A singular exception is Lyman who boldly explored the whole issue of vice, and related sloth to acedia. See Stanford M. Lyman, The Seven Deadly Sins: Society and Evil, second edition (New York: General Hall Inc., 1989), pp. 5–52. In a highly imaginative point, Lyman sees a property of acedia in Chekhov’s The Three Sisters. For him, the drama is about the impact of acedia, ‘the conversion of the world

    Google Scholar 

  44. into a meaningless void, full of sound and silence, smoldering feeling and affectless neutrality, meaningless actions and uncertain outcomes. One can neither wait nor hope, move on or give up. Life becomes pure existence’, p. 42.

    Google Scholar 

  45. Timothy McDermott (ed.), St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae: A Concise Translation (London: Methuen 1991), p. 365.

    Google Scholar 

  46. For an extended treatment of the monastic struggles with acedia, see John Cassian: The Institutes, trans. Boniface Ramsey (New York: The Newman Press, 2000), pp. 217–38. See also Columba Stewart, Cassian the Monk (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998).

    Google Scholar 

  47. Georges Bernanos, Under Satan’s Sun, trans. J.C. Whitehouse (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 2001), p. 250.

    Google Scholar 

  48. Ibid.

    Google Scholar 

  49. J.C. Whitehouse, The Vertical Man (London: The St Austin Press, 1999), pp. 128–33.

    Google Scholar 

  50. Patricia Meyer Spacks, Boredom: The Literary History of a State of Mind (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1996), p. 23.

    Google Scholar 

  51. Cited in ibid., p. 14.

    Google Scholar 

  52. Michael L. Raposa, Boredom and the Religious Imagination (Charolottesville: University Press of Virginia, 1999), pp. 34–40.

    Google Scholar 

  53. Mark Vernon, “‘I Am Not What I Am” — Foucault, Christian Asceticism and a “Way Out” of Sexuality’, in Carrette (ed.), Religion and Culture by Michel Foucault, pp. 199–201 and 207–8. See also J. Joyce Shuld, Foucault and Augustine: Reconsidering Power and Love (South Bend, Indiana: University of Notre Dame Press, 2003).

    Google Scholar 

  54. Commenting on this verse, Cassian notes that the issue was not one of the eye, but of the guarding of a purity of heart within. See John Cassian, The Monastic Institutes, trans. Jerome Bertram (London: The Saint Austin Press, 1999), pp. 100–1.

    Google Scholar 

  55. See the entry on the relationship between the senses and the spiritual by Carol Harrison, in Allan D. Fitzgerald (ed.), Augustine Through the Ages: An Encyclopaedia (Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans, 1999), pp. 767–8.

    Google Scholar 

  56. Max Weber, The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, trans. Talcott Parsons (London: Unwin, 1930).

    Google Scholar 

  57. Dennis Brissett and Robert P. Snow, ‘Boredom: Where the Future Isn’t’, Symbolic Interaction, vol. 16, no. 3, 1993, pp. 243–5.

    Google Scholar 

  58. Ibid., pp. 250–2.

    Google Scholar 

  59. Keith Tester, Media, Culture and Morality (London: Routledge, 1994), p. 130. See also his later study, Compassion, Morality and the Media (Buckingham: Open University Press, 2001).

    Google Scholar 

  60. Luc Boltanski, Distant Suffering: Morality, Media and Politics, trans. Graham Burchell (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999), pp. 24–30.

    Google Scholar 

  61. J.-K. Huysmans, La Bas (London: Dedalus, 1986), p. 11. A tragic confirmation of this point appeared in The Times, 28 August 2001, in an account of worries of authorities in Germany at the rise of interest in devil worship amongst teenagers that led to a rash of suicides.

    Google Scholar 

  62. Ibid., p. 210.

    Google Scholar 

  63. Simon Hardy, The Reader, the Author, His Woman and Her Lover: Sof t-Core Pornography and Heterosexual Men (London: Cassell, 1998), especially pp. 5–26.

    Google Scholar 

  64. Ibid., pp. 100–1.

    Google Scholar 

  65. Decca Aitkenhead, ‘Net Porn’, The Observer, review section, 30 March 2003, pp. 1–2.

    Google Scholar 

  66. See for example, Wendy Shalit, A Return to Modesty: Discovering the Lost Virtue (New York: Simon & Schuster, 2000).

    Google Scholar 

  67. See for example, Richard Maltby, Hollywood Cinema (Oxford: Blackwell, 1995).

    Google Scholar 

  68. For a rare, if not idiosyncratic treatment of religion and the cinema from a perspective of cultural studies, see Margaret R. Miles, Seeing and Believing: Religion and Values in the Movies (Boston: Beacon Press, 1996).

    Google Scholar 

  69. See for example, Pam Cook and Mieke Bernink (eds), The Cinema Book, second edition (London: British Film Institute, 1999), Part 7, ‘Theoretical Foundations’, pp. 319–73. Structuralism, psychoanalysis, feminism are its main areas, with the issue of spectatorship set between brief considerations of cultural studies and audience research.

    Google Scholar 

  70. Laura Mulvey, ‘Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema’, in John Caughie and Annette Kuhn (eds), The Sexual Subject: A Screen Reader in Sexuality (London: Routledge, 1992), p. 23.

    Google Scholar 

  71. Jackie Stacey, Star Gazing: Hollywood Cinema and Female Spectatorship (London: Routledge, 1994), p. 36. One suspects that matters might have moved on since 1988, when concerns were raised about the absence of material on how women look at men. Again the same issues of anonymity would arise of who the women are who view male pornography. See Suzanne Moore, ‘Here’s Looking at You, Kid’ and Avis Lewallen, ‘Lace: Pornography for Women’, in Lorraine Gamman and Margaret Marshment (eds), The Female Gaze: Women as Viewers of Popular Culture (London: The Women’s Press, 1988), pp. 44–59 and 86–101. See especially p. 45 in the former and p. 98 in the latter.

    Google Scholar 

  72. Norman K. Denzin, The Cinematic Society: The Voyeur’s Gaze (London: Sage, 1995), p. 1.

    Google Scholar 

  73. Ibid., pp. 28 and 36.

    Google Scholar 

  74. Ibid., p. 49–57.

    Google Scholar 

  75. Ibid., p. 191.

    Google Scholar 

  76. Ibid., p. 194.

    Google Scholar 

  77. Ibid., p. 211.

    Google Scholar 

  78. Laura Bovone, ‘Ethics as Etiquette: The Emblematic Contribution of Erving Gof fman’, Theory, Culture & Society, vol. 10, no. 4, November 1993, pp. 25–39. For a consideration of the intellectual origins of the link between etiquette and ceremony, see Gary D. Jaworski, Park, Doyle and Hughes: Neglected Antecedents of Gof fman’s Theory of Ceremony’, Sociological Inquiry, vol. 66, no. 2, May 1996, pp. 160–74.

    Google Scholar 

  79. Susan O. Michelman, ‘Changing Old Habits: Dress of Women Religious and Its Relationship to Personal and Social Identity’, Sociological Inquiry, vol. 67, no. 3, August 1997, pp. 350–63.

    Google Scholar 

  80. See M. Catherine Daly, ‘The Paarda Expression of Hejaaab among Afghan Women in a Non-Muslim Community’, in Linda B. Arthur (ed.), Religion, Dress and the Body (Oxford: Berg, 1999), pp. 147–61.

    Google Scholar 

  81. Fadwa El Guindi, Veil: Modesty, Privacy and Resistance (Oxford: Berg, 1999).

    Google Scholar 

  82. Erving Gof fman, Behaviour in Public Places: Notes on the Social Organization of Gatherings (New York: The Free Press, 1963), Chapter 6, ‘Face Engagements’, pp. 83–111.

    Google Scholar 

  83. See the preface by Raymond Keaveney and Peter C. Sutton in Peter C. Sutton, Lisa Vergara and Ann Jensen Adams, Love Letters: Dutch Genre Paintings in the Age of Vermeer (Bruce Museum of Arts and Science, Greenwich, Connecticut and National Gallery of Ireland, Dublin, 2003), pp. 9–10.

    Google Scholar 

  84. Peter C. Sutton, ‘Love Letters: Dutch Genre Paintings in the Age of Vermeer’, ibid., p. 15.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Bristol, UK

    Kieran Flanagan (Reader in Sociology)

Authors
  1. Kieran Flanagan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Copyright information

© 2004 Kieran Flanagan

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Flanagan, K. (2004). To See or Not to See: The Plight of the Voyeur. In: Seen and Unseen. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230502383_5

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation