Like what you've read?

On Line Opinion is the only Australian site where you get all sides of the story. We don't
charge, but we need your support. Here�s how you can help.

  • Advertise

    We have a monthly audience of 70,000 and advertising packages from $200 a month.

  • Volunteer

    We always need commissioning editors and sub-editors.

  • Contribute

    Got something to say? Submit an essay.


 The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
On Line Opinion logo ON LINE OPINION - Australia's e-journal of social and political debate

Subscribe!
Subscribe





On Line Opinion is a not-for-profit publication and relies on the generosity of its sponsors, editors and contributors. If you would like to help, contact us.
___________

Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Naked children, moral philosophy and photographs

By Peter Bowden - posted Friday, 15 August 2008


The debate about children in art and the surrounding morality started with Bill Henson's photographs of naked pubescent children. It is wider now, extending in several directions.

First has been the front cover of Art Monthly Australia with the photo of a naked six-year-old Olympia Nelson, a photograph staunchly defended by her father, and then savagely castigated by Miranda Devine. Next has been the request by the Minister that the arts community come up with a set of protocols. But the final reason the debate has widened is the most intriguing - and difficult to answer - and that is the pitting of people with respected social consciences on either side of this debate.

It opened with Cate Blanchett against Kevin Rudd.

Advertisement

Not long after, a highly regarded Julian Burnside, defender of refugees, took a position opposite to an equally respected Clive Hamilton, Professor of Ethics at Charles Stuart University. But the most important question is, in discussing these issues with many people, I find some whose opinions I have long respected, see no wrong in exhibiting photos of naked children. Others, in contrast, intrinsically believe the exhibitions are wrong.

These paragraphs are an attempt to discover why the community differs, and whether we can find an answer. It will not be easy for the arts community to develop protocols.

A first step was to explore what guidelines the great thinkers on moral philosophy have left us. They will not give us an absolute ruling but they might help decide. Immanuel Kant seemed the most appropriate: if you are unwilling to allow everybody to adopt an activity whenever they wanted to, then that activity is not morally acceptable. Would we allow photographers to photograph and exhibit the photos of every pubescent child who was willing to pose for him? Even when the parents of the willing children gave permission - for whatever reason, for the child to do so?

Kant's second categorical imperative was even stronger which was that we should not use anybody for our own purposes. It is a superb injunction that asks us to respect the autonomy, individuality and self-respect of other people.

What ever the parents' motives might be, or the photographer's, be it an artistic desire, a search for notoriety, or to make money, they are using their children for their own objectives. A naked full frontal is unlikely to be the photographic objective of any child, but even for those that it is, the children are not old enough to make these decisions.

 We only have to look at the experiments of Stanley Milgram in the 1970s that showed us the extent that adults will obey people they believe to be in authority, even when such obedience is against all basic instincts. Would it not be more so with children?

Advertisement

Another major moral guideline comes from John Stuart Mill, which we know as utilitarianism, or consequentialism. He said create happiness, avoid harm. This theory, which is probably the most widely used moral theory today, is only partially useful. We are not sure whether the photos cause harm. Did Olympia Nelson suffer any harm? Will she, or any of the child models, as adults, feel mortified when the photos surface in adulthood?

Aristotle and then Aquinas supposedly gave us the virtues to guide our moral decisions but the virtues are rarely of much use in today's difficult decisions. I can always find a virtue to support one side and another to support the opposite view. In this case, none of the seven virtues provide any guidance.

So a wider search becomes necessary. From social gatherings to a survey of attendees at a national ethics conference, listening to the public debates, as well as this paper, all became methods of determining why people's opinions differ.

The survey of 13 people, primarily teachers of ethics, gave seven against the photographs, three for, and three undecided (as had not seen the photos). The dinner table conversations were overwhelmingly against.

The arguments against the photographs were primarily that children were unable to weigh up the full implications of what they were doing, but second on the wider issue of the sexualisation of children, and the responsibility of parents. "Would Cate Blanchett allow her children to be photographed that way?" was on one of the survey forms.

One particularly powerful argument came from an adult male: "I went to a Christian Brothers School," he said "and there were two members of that religious order who use to fondle boys. I was one of those boys. Remember in those days, boys wore short pants. I have never since fully trusted the intentions of middle aged males." He added that the fondling of the private parts of school boys approaching adulthood, plus the then current knowledge of the 70 men in Australia currently being charged with internet pornography, much of which were photos of naked children, was his concern with the exhibitions.

The arguments for the exhibition were principally on the desire for artistic freedom: "I do not want censorship", said more than one respondent. Plus, a denial that the photographs were in any way pornographic - a denial that was echoed by several on both sides. "Many (of the photos) are even beautiful", said one respondent who did not agree with the exhibitions.

Of those who supported the exhibitions, the anonymous defenders of artistic freedom in On Line Opinion provided the more brilliant of the "for" responses: "Hensen is no more guilty than Michelangelo for his innocent artistic portraying of nude forms". (gecko); "All advertisers and artistic productions involving children could be characterised as 'using children for their own ends'". (Steel); "well, there go the harry potter movies. and the children of narnia movie. and nicky webster at the olympics. and ... god, this is just too easy." (bushbasher); "Very silly argument: ... Well, yes. Just like ABC Learning Centres , Mattel and the Wiggles, to name just a few" (jpw2040).

The most intelligent comment of the lot came from someone who at least had the courage to supply his name "Back under your rock, Bowden - come back in 50 years" posted CJ Morgan, Tuesday, June 3, 2008. Mr Morgan's comment is to be valued; for it is one that contributes immensely to the country's intellectual thinking on this debate.

Statues and paintings of naked children have been created since time immemorial; even paintings of a naked Christ, (Jan van Hemessen, Madonna and Child, 1543). But this issue is not about paintings or statues. The current controversy is about photographs: photos of actual children whose names we know. They are a far cry from a naked Michelangelo. We have no idea of who posed for this statue, and even if we did, the statue is not him but a statue of David, a representation from biblical history. The photos today are circulated around the country, with the full power of the internet, about real people whom we will know for many years.

The Narnia movie, Harry Potter, and the Wiggles are childrens' entertainment. The photos of naked children were not intended for other children, but for adults.

There is little doubt that the photographs have offended some people. The Minister for the Arts has asked for protocols. Should we have them? John Stuart Mill gave us another convincing guideline.

The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others.

Do the photos cause harm? Remember: the trial of the paedophile Dolly Dunn, and the recorded conversations about the bodies of young boys they saw on the street, or Maddy McCann and the reports that she was kidnapped by a paedophile ring, or the respondent who still could feel the wandering hands of his male teacher?

So, it may not be, even indirectly, harm from the consequences of these exhibitions that affects the models, although we are far from sure. It may be the harm that arises from arousing the senses of men who get a thrill from naked children; and the possible harm to other children.

Note: Sydney's Philosophy Café will debate this issue on August 19. Gecko, Steele, and other staunch defenders of artistic freedom are invited to stand up and have their say.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. All


Discuss in our Forums

See what other readers are saying about this article!

Click here to read & post comments.

93 posts so far.

Share this:
reddit this reddit thisbookmark with del.icio.us Del.icio.usdigg thisseed newsvineSeed NewsvineStumbleUpon StumbleUponsubmit to propellerkwoff it

About the Author

Peter Bowden is an author, researcher and ethicist. He was formerly Coordinator of the MBA Program at Monash University and Professor of Administrative Studies at Manchester University. He is currently a member of the Australian Business Ethics Network , working on business, institutional, and personal ethics.

Other articles by this Author

All articles by Peter Bowden

Creative Commons LicenseThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Photo of Peter Bowden
Article Tools
Comment 93 comments
Print Printable version
Subscribe Subscribe
Email Email a friend
Advertisement

About Us Search Discuss Feedback Legals Privacy