Artistic Expression or Social Harm? (B5 Ika and Jerald)

The real world issue concerns individuals who are fined or jailed for perusing or drawing artwork of children engaged in sexual behaviour. Two cases are brought up: A person is fined $3000 for drawing girls performing sexual acts and another is jailed for 20 years for 74 counts of owning manga depicting lolicon, or children engaging in sexual acts. This podcast presented the testimonies of two different sides of this issue. On one side we have Charles Brownstien and the argument of freedom of expression. An artist should be able to paint or draw what he wants to. Also, because the characters that are drawn are fictional, do they really fall under the classification of child pornography? We cannot prosecute people for ideas, represented on a piece of paper with lines. On the other hand, we look at the danger of artworks which fall into these categories. Marie Leery claims that we can never provide evidence to confirm that there is a direct correlation between people who are exposed to these artworks and whether or not they themselves turn into offenders. There is still social harm being cause when the material is fictional but still obscene. Where is the legal line for comic artists?

We think that the knowledge issue here is where do we draw the line between the freedom of expression and the safety of the public. On one extreme, we can say that any harmful ideas or thoughts should be prosecuted. Any painting, or film, or game which suggests the slightest bit of violence or sex should be banned. There will be total censorship over everything. This is absurd because almost all materials can be suggestive of some form of immorality. And besides, what is moral and what is not? Something that is considered to be an unspeakable act of horror in one culture might be appropriate and accepted as something normal in another. On the other extreme, if there is complete freedom of expression then people would be allowed to express their rage at someone by murdering them. There would be no consequences for any action, and the world will be chaotic. Clearly there is a middle ground where we have to sacrifice some aspects of each extreme for the benefit of a quality from the other.

In an article on how the quotes we associate to various famous people are actually idealized versions of what they really said, we see the same knowledge issue appear. Are we recasting the knowledge of great thinkers in the shape of our illusions? Do we, and should we, idealize to protect ourselves from harmful knowledge? In this case, the middle ground would be closer to the freedom of expression, because it is better to accept the words of great thinkers for what they are, even if they do not promise what we want to hear. If we changed these quotations to reassure ourselves of what we want to hear, we are protecting ourselves from harm by deluding ourselves and conforming to one chain of thought. In the case of the fine line between porn and art, when we allow artworks which suggest child pornography to be published, we are also deluding ourselves to some extent, that these artistic expressions are in fact pointing toward the notion of child pornography. However, we have to respect the same freedom of expression at the same time, at the cost of public safety.

There is another case where the line between pornography and art is extremely unclear that involves real-life characters. Klara and Edda Belly-dancing (click at your own risk!), a photograph by award-winning American photographer Nan Goldin, depicts two young girls dancing, one of them naked. Both of their legs were spread out. This was displayed as part of a 139-image collection in the Baltic Centre for Contemporary Art in Gateshead. This piece was removed from the gallery by police, and it is up to the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) to decide whether to prosecute under the 1978 Project of Children Act that prohibits showing "indecent" photographs of children. In this case , the issue is not only whether or not the piece of art is porn or not - it's whether or not it is meant to be porn and how people perceive it as porn or not. For a piece of artwork, the reaction of the audience to it is an essential part of the message of the piece is. Not everyone has the same opinion on a photo of child nudity. While Goldin and some people might perceive the photo as capturing a realistic moment of children playing, others might see it as material for masturbation for pedophiles. What the audience think and does in reaction to the artwork, which could be harmful, might not be the intention of the artist.This is a good example of a work that that is potentially "immoral" where it's conviction is still a question. Since reactions to the photo are split, it is fair to take a middle ground with this case and take a risk with public safety in exchange for the freedom of expression.

Going back to the real world issue of artistic expression versus the social harm in artwork which suggest child pornography, we have to decide what is more important in this case, the freedom of expression, or public safety. We have to acknowledge the fact that while fictional characters are not actual people, they do represent them; an illustration of child depicted having sex is representative of child pornography. Because of this, if there is in fact a correlation between reading these illustrations and going on to perform the same acts, drawing such artwork or mangas should be illegal, unless the art in question has values in literature or science or represents something else aside from child pornography.

The Art of Diagnosis (B1, Mika and Remmy)

The APA is publishing the DSM-V in 2013. Many disorders, including PMDD (Premenstrual Dysphoric Disorder), addiction, compulsive buying disorder, and apathy disorder, will be added by the DSM-V Task Force into the DSM-V. The central TOK issue raised in the article is the language issue of defining abnormality or normality. The AoK involves human sciences because the DSM-V is based on human behavior.

The advantage of adding all the disorders is that it is a means for the systematic categorization of mental disorders. By categorizing mental disorders, every psychiatrist would be able to consult the same book to make diagnosis instead of relying on his or her opinions. In other words, the DSM put a name to symptoms of a mental disorder and provides structure for the diagnosing of mental disorders.

On the other hand, the disadvantage is that DSM doesn’t draw a clear line between a pathological disorder and an idiosyncratic behavior. It’s difficult to explicitly claim that one behavior is normal and the other isn’t. For example, some symptoms of PMDD are sadness and anxiety. They are arbitrary and may be experienced by everyone. Also, lot of times, the symptoms of mental disorders have certain timelines (i.e. “if you’re depressed for over two weeks....”), but who defined that (i.e. why two weeks instead of three)? Another disadvantage is that the disorders are stigmatizing; labeling people could lead to self-fulfilling prophecies and seclusion. Lastly, the validity of the DSM should be considered. Every publication of DSM is thicker than the preceding one, and the widening scope of disorders makes us question if the DSM is accurate and all of us crazy or sick, or if the DSM is written in favor of certain authorities, such as drug industries in the ‘60s.

Despite the questionable validity of such a classification system of mental illnesses, the benefits of DSM-V (or DSM in general) outweigh the disadvantages, because it provides a standardized way for people to understand their own behavior as well as one another’s. Although DSM may not be accurate in drawing the line between abnormality and normality, it is still better to be precise and not accurate than it is to be neither precise nor accurate.

Branching off, the language issue of defining abnormality and normality brings an interesting question: can life in general be defined by words? Language is a human tool used to label the world around us and to communicate with one another. However, it is an imprecise tool. Often times, the words we use are not an accurate depiction of what we are thinking. Just as a map is not a precise representation of the territory, language is an imprecise representation of our thoughts.

Similar to the DSM-V case concerning language barriers, Caster Semenya also had trouble with questions about her gender during the 2009 World Championships. It was questioned whether Caster Semenya had a physical condition that gave her an advantage over the other competitors. The question the issue raises is, how should gender be defined? Or, in the grander scheme of life, how should anything be defined, when so few things are clearly this or clearly that and everything else falls in between?

The Problem with DSM (IB Psych) - Kali, Monica, Anna

The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, or DSM for short, is a book cataloging all “mind-based maladies designed by the American Psychiatric Assocation” (On the Media). The podcast questions the validity of the DSM, as well as the definition of “abnormality” - what is “abnormal enough” to be included in the DSM? The latest edition of the DSM, DSM V, is being published in 2013 and the first draft was recently released by the American Psychiatric Association for public criticism and comment. Many questions can be raised about the DSM. How do you define abnormality and normality? Can humans be categorized? Does the book cover disorders from all different types of ethnicities?

A problem with the DSM is that it cannot distinguish what is “normal” and what is “abnormal”. The definition of “abnormal” and “normal” is a serious issue that is always up for debate. The power of a word can make a significant change to a man’s life; but if there isn’t an exact definition of the word, how can we predict the level of impact on that person? Even though we have a preferred definition for our daily language, but when it comes to “a word with 2 definitions” or words that sound similar, there is no formula that tells you which one to use at the right moment. Since we usually pick the word that is most suitable for that specific situation, then what if a similar situation occurred but with some slight changes, is that word still suitable, or should it be implied with a different meaning?  For instance, a common question asked in court is, “Is he/she guilty or not?”, the word guilty, can be implied in many different way. First, the definition of guilty doesn’t have an exact definition. For example, if not finishing your food on the plate is considered a severe level of guilt and that it would cost your life, then, if a man robbed a convenient store, does that mean that he should be prosecuted right away? Also, another definition of the word “commitment” can be varied in many different situations. For instance, in a relationship, if you are committed do another person, does that mean that if you were to spend more time at work and not on your family, you are not a committed person? So, all the married people who are committed to work are not a good spouse? All words imply something different. We create words and give it “semi-exact” definition because they are essential for communication; but when it comes to different people using their own sets of mind analyzing a word in different situations, the final message coming from the brain will differ for everyone; that beings said, nothing is the same, it is only the published books and wireless internet that gives you the illusion that all words have an exact interpretation to it.

An example is homosexuality, which wasn’t taken out of the DSM as a psychological disorder until 1986 (Mofas). That means that homosexuality wasn’t “normal” until 25 years ago. What is normal? Does it depend on the culture? Many cultures have different ideas of what “normal” is. If there are different opinions of what “normal” is, then does “normal” exist? Normality is relative, we need a standard scale for this kind of subjectivity. The disorders DSM provided seem like usual human characteristics, just on different levels. But what level is too much and who is to say that that is the scale to follow to? And, if something is in the DSM, does that mean it’s not normal? There is also an issue of what to put in the DSM when it is being revised.

Now that our society has changed, internet addiction or maybe even pornography addiction might be able to be added to the DSM. In my opinion, I do think those should be added to the DSM because it does affect some peoples’ daily lives. However, I wonder if in the future, when computers are even more widely used than today (i.e. every student in America has to bring a laptop to school), if internet addiction would be considered a psychological disorder. Perhaps people in the future will laugh at how it was a disorder, and it might seem so silly to them.

So, I think that although the DSM is not completely reliable, it is good that it is being revised because our society does keep changing. However, I think that the DSM should be revised more often. In the past, it has been revised once every 6-16 years. Thankfully, according to MOFAS, the DSM should be revised more often after the publication of the most recent one, DSM-V. The DSM does have another issue, though. At times, the symptoms for some disorders may be found in some people who shouldn’t be diagnosed with that disorder. I can find some symptoms of depression in myself, but I wouldn’t say I suffer from depression. Many people I know claim to have a psychological disorder, such as ADHD, and claim to be taking medication for it, but their actions seem to be more as a result of being an immature teenager than someone diagnosed with ADHD. This is an issue brought up by Dr. Jonathon Metz. People go to the doctors and claim to have a particular disorder or disease and ask for medication, and the doctor approves it. He says that “what happens over time is that the diagnostic boundaries expand and expand and expand, so that a drug that was indicated for a very small subset of people over time becomes indicated and used for a much wider category”.

Sometimes it can even seem like the DSM makes it so easy for patients to go to a doctor and say they think they have a specific disorder, and the doctor can easily agree. People might also take advantage of claiming him or herself of having a disorder and not take responsibility in his or her own actions.So, what the DSM shouldn’t cover is how many symptoms one must express  and/or how severe their symptoms must be in order to be considered for diagnosis for a disorder.

The Decline Effect (IB Sciences) - Christine, Monica, Aidan

The decline effect basically suggests that a set of data may contain certain patterns and trends but over time, after series of observation, the data will regress to the mean and show results closer to the reality. After listening to the radio, I was pretty convinced but I really didn't know what to think. Why do these data change over time? Is replication really the problem? If all our well-established, multiply confirmed findings start to look increasingly uncertain, where does that leave us? It's as if our facts were losing their truth: claims that have been enshrined in textbooks are suddenly unprovable. "The most likely explanation for the decline is an obvious one: regression to the mean. As the experiment is repeated, that is, an early statistical fluke gets canceled out... And yet Schooler has noticed that many of the data sets that end up declining seem statistically solid--that is, they contain enough data that any regression to the mean shouldn't be dramatic. "These are the results that pass all the tests," he says. "The odds of them being random are typically quite remote, like one in a million. This means that the decline effect should almost never happen. But it happens all the time!..." (Lehrer) If these results aren't random, why does the data change over time? Is it then, the act of observation that changes reality itself then? The podcast gave an example that really stood out to me, placing your hand on your leg, you feel it but as you leave it there, it becomes less and less noticeable, somehow there may be some kind of habituation that comes into the middle of this all. The podcast then goes on to say that in this sense, we can never know what is absolutely set in stone and even the notion that the laws of reality are unchangeable may be changed, because, it's just a reasonable assumption that we, as humans, make. In this sense, you can never know what's for sure, and what's not, truth then, would be based on "the observer’s position, habits, biases, information whatever." But some things in life seem to be constant, like Newton's law. Maybe the decline effect only happens in places where a lot of variables are at stake, most evidently, science. The real question in this study is: how do we know that the facts that were – are here today will be there tomorrow?

In numerous scientific studies a general declining trend has been noticed, seemingly without reason. For example, a study might find that in general animals prefer mates with symmetrical features, with a margin of around 30%. As time goes on and this study is reproduced, however, it might be found that that margin drops lower and lower, until the effect has eventually regressed to insignificance. Many causes for this effect have been hypothesized and examined, but no clear cause has been found. This state is made even more perplexing by the fact that this effect can be observed across multiple disciplines.

“Does the decline effect decline?” This poses an issue about whether everything that has been recorded is valid or whether everything had been an illusion that results from experimenters’ bias. In psychology experimenters’ bias is when experimenters see results in their studies that correspond to their theses or what they wish the answer to their experiment would be. This also raises questions about the validity of the scientific method. Society is based on science as humans like to believe that they know facts. However, there is no way to know whether or not facts are really true as facts are merely accumulation of things perceived by individuals deemed as being true. There is no way that scientists will be able to test everything relative to their theory to confirm the theory. In this case, scientific laws are also deemed as invalid as the word “law” implies that it is always to be followed. These laws are really just theories that have been tested and verified over and over again, but scientists have no way to observe everything. It is impossible, therefore, to form a valid scientific law.

Porn's Fine Lines (IB Art) - Karishma, Tiff Lay, Sonnia

This podcast illuminated the case of men possessing  Japanese comics that depicted underage characters engaging in sexual acts. The speakers argue between freedom of speech and artistic expression in regards to the controversial nature of these creations being harmful to society, particularly children. There was a recent update in policy stating that nay kind of child pornography, real or fiction, would be prosecuted. Christopher Handly (age 38), the man in question, possessed over 1200 comics, graphic novels, and DVDs but was only prosecuted for less than a dozen of them that included controversial content.

This issue boils down to the battle of freedom of expression versus the good of society. In this, the concepts of reason/logic and the arts. Reason, the voice of society, is saying that this form of art is inappropriate and unacceptable by the established standards. They would say that the artists of these works are simply creating child pornography and trying to pass it off as artistic expression. But in the world of art, freedom of expression applies. The point of things like creative arts is to allow artists to express their individual voice. To condemn an artist’s work for being inappropriate could be seen as censorship.

This article highlights several questions. Firstly, what is art? What is appropriate art? What is "controversial art"? Why should people possessing "controversial art" be prosecuted? In this case, we see the struggle between freedom of expression through art versus the good of society in regards to shielding the human eye from "controversial subjects". Speaking from reason, the voice of society's point of view, it is important to censor certain types of art because they can lead to larger problems. However, isn't art supposed to open the eyes of society? Aren't artists always trying to paint new concepts in order to help the mind spread its horizons? Although some subjects may seem wrong, from an artist's point of view, it is not right to restrict them because art can be interpreted in many ways. There is no one way to look at art; therefore, it can be argued that "controversial" subjects are simply interpreted wrongly by society. Thus, to preserve one of our greatest values, the freedom of expression, it would be going against our principles to condemn someone’s artistic depiction, and prosecute someone for possessing that kind of artwork, especially seeing as he had not showed that it had influenced his behavior in any negative way.
Visual art like what is depicted in this article is not limited. But should visual art be limited in some sort of way because it may lead to potential illegal behavior. Some other forms of art like movies or even some books are limited and are rated accordingly. However visual art is a bit different because it is just an way that someone is expressing what they are trying to say or just a feeling. Should we have the right to control these expression? Where should the line be drawn? The truth is we can't ever prove that art is harmful without harming anyone. But if some form of visual art is potential harm then should that be limited. We think that art should be a freedom of expression. None of the artist out there is trying to harm someone. Although some things may be potential harm but what is potential harm, potential harm is harm that has not yet happened.  Going deeper into the issue, what is it that makes the involvement of children in sexuality such a heinous crime? Sexuality is a primal instinct. What sets us humans apart from animals is our ability to restrain these primal instincts. Over time, our society has become more and more open with sexuality itself. However, we have remained protective of our young when it comes to these ‘adult’ matters. TO BE CONTINUED......

How to Post to the Class Blog

During your time in this course you will be required to develop an analytical approach to knowledge issues both in your essays and your oral presentations. To start familiarizing you with this analytical (TOK) approach, I figured we’d work backwards. These On The Media podcasts are rough examples of this type of analytical approach to a current issue/topic in the news and offer an opportunity to practice dissecting this type of thinking. The questions are simply meant as a guide for what you should include in your post, not, necessarily, a step-by-step recipe of how to unpack the issue.  

Ultimately, each of you will be responsible for seeking out an issue and do the type of analysis you are examining here. I have given you these topics and given you a discussion of them and am now simply having you unpack the key ingredients of them. I am giving you a proverbial fish and steps on how to gut, cook and serve it. The next fish you’ll need to catch, gut, cook and serve all on your own. Look at the examples I provide below to guide you in your posts to the blog.

STEP 1:  What is the current issue/event with a TOK orientation?

This is simply a quick summation of what the issue/event is. For those who didn’t listen to the podcast that you did, can you give them a brief overview of what it’s all about. What is the issue/event?

· EXAMPLE: Caster Semenya is a gold-medal winning South African sprinter whose gender has been called into question and is now under investigation by a special team of medical experts.

· EXAMPLE: The US Women’s Silver Medal 2008 Olympic Gymnastics team has officially lodged a complaint with the International Olympic Committee (IOC) questioning the legitimacy of several members of the Chinese Women’s Gold Medal Gymnastics Team to compete in the Olympic Games. The US team doubts that their Chinese counterparts meet the minimum age requirement of 16 demanded by the IOC.

STEP 2:  What Ways of Knowing (WoK) and/or Areas of Knowledge (AoK) are involved?

How are they involved in this issue/event?

As you examine this issue, what Ways of Knowing and Areas of Knowledge are relevant (not all need to be relevant).

Caster Semenya example

· Human Sciences – methodological questions about how one can accurately determine gender.

· Language – how do we best define “male” and “female”? Are they clear, binary categories or is it a gender continuum?

Chinese Gymnastics example

· Human Sciences – methodological questions about how one can accurately determine age.

· Sense Perception – is it sufficient to simply say that someone “doesn’t look 16”?

· Emotion – can the Chinese authorities be trusted when they present official paperwork certifying the gymnasts ages?

STEP 2 continued:  What is it that people are really arguing or debating in this issue?

If you distill this debate down to its most basic elements, what are they?

Caster Semenya example

· Are “male” and “female” clearly definable categories? Can words map territory?

· Can human beings be accurately and unambiguously grouped and categorized?

Chinese Gymnastics example

· Is human behavior (or physiology, in this case) measurable and predictable?

· Can we reduce human sciences to law-like regularities?

STEP 3: Why can’t they resolve or clarify the argument/debate? What keeps us from having a universally agreed upon answer to this issue?

Why hasn’t this gone away? Why are people still talking about this?

Caster Semenya example

· Definitions are not nearly as clear cut as people think. And when an outlier or unusual case takes us to the fuzzy borders of our conceptual categories (“male” and “female”), we fight about what methodologies (methods) should be used to provide “definitive” clarity.

Chinese Gymnastics example

· Generalizations can be made about human beings but for every “rule” you can always find exceptions. Human Sciences deal with complex phenomena that are not as easily reduced to governing laws. While we can use the methods we’ve developed (economic, psychological, anthropological, medical, etc) to aid us, we may never achieve absolute certainty about our object of study…namely, ourselves.

STEP 4: What other issues/topics/events share a similar problem?

Once you have hit the basic knowledge issue that lies beneath the original event/issue, can you show how this knowledge issue applies in other cases both within this area and others?

Caster Semenya example

· Definitional distinctions will always raise issues when the stakes are high. Is Caster Semenya male or female? Is bin Laden a “terrorist” or a “freedom fighter”? Is the CIA’s waterboarding policy “torture” or just “enhanced interrogation”? Is the earth experiencing “global warming” or simply “climate change”? The answers to these questions will tell us more about the people given the answer than it will solve the semantic (language) issue at hand.

Chinese Gymnastics example

• Can we ever achieve any accuracy in our generalizations and trends in human sciences? Can we predict how the stock market will behave in the future? Can we determine which students are “exceptional”? Can we measure intelligence?