moral ambiguity and heroism and torture / dressed for a change

[oiran]

There's a discussion taking place in chain_lightning's journal about the acceptance of the use of torture by "good guys" on TV. Apparently, torture as a legitimate method for getting one's way or obtaining information has been increasingly prevalent on network shows, specifically justified as an anti-terror or "for the good of the world" action. I don't watch any of the programs that others cited except for Battlestar Galactica, but even though it's not an example of an overt "saving the world" situation, I was surprised that the torture sequence on Lost wasn't mentioned. I had found it to be complex and interesting (and unnerving), so I did a brief recap of the scene with some discussion in her comments.

I'm copying my text here because I want to keep track of it. However, I would like to continue the conversation, either here or in chain_lightning's space. If you watch 24, especially, you probably want to go over there.

torture isn't so bad:Reading through, I was surprised that no one mentioned the torture sequence in Lost. Which means that I will...

Eighth episode, airing back in November. Four of the shows major characters were involved in the scene, and at the time it aired, their moral status was thus: Jack is a good guy - if anyone is the hero, it's Jack. Sayid is a good guy. Kate is known to have killed at least one person, but she is posited more toward the good than the bad. Sawyer is amoral and opportunistic, but his good/bad status is always up in the air.

Jack and Sayid believe that Sawyer is holding another character's life-saving medicine, but nothing they say will persuade him to hand it over. They decide, with many significant, solemn glances between them, that the situation requires extreme measures. As it happens, Sayid was in the Republican Guard back home in Iran, and thus is well-versed in the ways of torture. Sawyer is smacked around and tied to a tree, then Sayid forces bamboo spears beneath his fingernails. Although the insertion of the bamboo is not shown, it's a very graphic and chilling scene with a lot of screaming. Jack and Sayid look regretful, but they don't stop what they're doing. Kate shows up and protests their treatment of Sawyer. Sawyer finally says he'll tell Kate - and only Kate - where to find the medicine. Jack and Sayid leave Sawyer and Kate alone. Sawyer says that Kate must kiss him before he'll give her the information. Kate does kiss him, and it's not the peck expected, but a whimper-driven tongue fest. As it turns out, Sawyer has no idea where the medicine is, and withstood the torture out of pure cussedness.

So, we have good guys torturing an ambiguous guy, but feeling really bad about it. We have a known murderer serving as moral arbiter. Sayid, despite being a good guy, is someone who in RL would probably be considered an enemy of the entire nation. And although Jack (a doctor, as well as hero) doesn't actually stick bamboo under Sawyer's nails, he does watch (and wince) and approve of this treatment as both necessary and appropriate, given circumstances. The kiss between Kate and Sawyer occurs while he's still tied to a tree and smeared with blood. Although the carnality of the moment does "match" the intensity of the prior torture scene, that in itself is unsettling. Of course, ultimately it's all Sawyer's fault, since if he'd just said right away that he didn't have the medicine, he wouldn't have been tortured.

In the aftermath, Jack and Sayid are sorry and Sawyer is ultimately no more wary of them than he'd been before.

The characters on Lost are all morally ambiguous to a greater or lesser extent - just like real people. Rather than white, the heroes are decked out in shades of gray...as are the potential villains. The most pressing threat to their lives is an unknown/unseen monster that periodically comes crashing through the jungle, and perhaps it's the threat of this shadowy Other that keeps Sawyer allied with Jack and Sayid.

So, if we thought that Sawyer had WMDs and tortured him to find out where they were hidden, but it turned out that he never had any... Hmm. Sounds familiar. All of it does, actually.

As to whether I'm disturbed by seeing the torture on TV - yes, I am. However, I thought it was used effectively in Lost, and a parsing of the scene makes it seem equally likely that it could be read as either pro-war propaganda or the exact opposite. The heroes behaved drastically, even badly, and all for naught. In fact, an herbal remedy was found that effectively replaced the missing medicine, making the entire confrontation ultimately unnecessary.

I guess I can't come to any conclusion here. I'm just poking at the ideas with a stick.

On the one hand, I do like "heroes" becoming morally ambiguous. It makes them more interesting, more relatable, and more human. On the other, if the normalization of torture as a motif in popular entertainment either deliberately or inadvertently numbs an audience/the populace to extreme and inhumane tactics in the real world, that's not so much of the good. I don't know how much weight I'm willing to give a TV drama about a mysterious island in terms of shaping This Great Country's moral fiber or worldview, and in this instance I'm definitely more interested in the scene than I am ready to rail against its brief appearance on my TV screen.

~~~

Enough torture talk for the moment. I'm going on a walk with the dog and taking my camera. It's a beautiful day, the first one in quite some time. Besides, it's high time for me to change out of my pajamas.

Comments

[reetchick.livejournal.com]

I wish I had something of value to contribute here, but I don't. Your subject line includes "torture," and given that I'm finishing the final edit on my Jason/Lex non-con, well. It drew my eye.

So, um. Hi! *waves* Hope you had a nice walk.

[oiran.livejournal.com]

I just read your story and left you a comment there. God. That's some dirtywrongness, there. I have a strange compulsion to go change my t-shirt for something with buttons...

(and yes, the walk was nice)

[rhiannonhero.livejournal.com]

I don't watch Lost so I can't comment on that, but I thought that the use of torture on BSG was "done well" in that I felt it was really an unnerving scene to watch and challenged the concepts of who was the good guy and who was the bad guy, brought to the fore thoughts of "other", etc. I really thought it was an effective set of scenes and I was glad they put them in. This may sound really odd, but I loved that they weren't squeamish about making one of their heros look potentially really misguided, cruel, bad, etc. I was thrilled that they had the guts to go there. It's like the point I was trying to get across to my state senators, you know? And it is so ambiguous and thought-hurty to try to figure it all out sometimes, but we should

Anyway, my other point I wanted to make is that I don't think that we are going to end up any more desentized by this stuff. I mean, historically humans have been torturing one another for various reasons forever and I'd make an arguement that in this day and age we are actually more sensitive to this kind of thing than we've ever been before. I mean, last time I checked, there weren't any groups of common American's gathering in crowds to watch a man be drawn and quartered for sheer amusement. The torture in Iraqi prisons was sadly pretty tame in comparison to what man has done to man historically. (I'm not, absolutely not, excusing that behavior, just pointing out that in the scheme of history, it could've been worse.) And, so, yeah, while I"m intrigued by the prevalence of torture on tv right now, I don't think that it will necessarily desentize us into horrible barbarians.

At the same time, I do consider it a potential form of brain washing and I'm interested to see in what ways this torture is played out--like on BSG where it is morally ambiguous? Or like in other places where supposedly it was "for the good of mankind" or whatever.

I think that was all very sloppily said. Oh well. :)

[mei-x.livejournal.com]

I mean, last time I checked, there weren't any groups of common American's gathering in crowds to watch a man be drawn and quartered for sheer amusement.

When I first started to respond to your comment, I think I misread what you wrote. I had a whole response written out, and then I realized that we're mostly in agreement. Anyway, I do agree that we as a culture may be more sensitized to torture -- or at least less blatant about appearing to condone it (hence the attempts to redefine the word torture or to get others to do it for us). However, in the not extremely distant past (think early-mid 20th century), there were groups of "common" Americans who thought little of gathering around lynched bodies snapping photos like they were at a barbeque.

I think what we Americans probably hate more than promoting or committing injustice is actually looking like people who promote or commit injustice. It's kind of bad to do it, but it's worse to be called on it.


(Disclaimer: I fully realize that my response probably went off on a tangent that has more to do with my initial misinterpretation of what you were saying. So think of my response as me using your comment as a springboard only. *g*)

[rhiannonhero.livejournal.com]

Yeah, my sloppily phrased comment was essentially to say that I don't think we are any more barbaric now than in the past, we just don't wan to appear that way, and I think the fact that BSG was willing to go there with their characterization was awesome. And, to be honest, my original response was half-way inspired by a comment elsewhere that implied that these shows would desensitize americans to torture and make it that much easier to do it. Part of me thinks that it might make it more acceptable to reveal that we do it by having it depicted on tv, but I don't think it will result in people being actually any more or less likely to perform torture. Oy...never mind. I don't think I'm being clear and I'm having a rough night, so this is just getting more muddled as I go. I think we're probably in agreement, but who the heck can say given my inability to communicate tonight. *shuts up*

[mei-x.livejournal.com]

Sorry you're having a rough night, Rhi.

And yeah, I think we are probably in agreement as well (I worried about my muddled way of communicating my thoughts on this matter too).

And, to be honest, my original response was half-way inspired by a comment elsewhere that implied that these shows would desensitize americans to torture and make it that much easier to do it. Part of me thinks that it might make it more acceptable to reveal that we do it by having it depicted on tv, but I don't think it will result in people being actually any more or less likely to perform torture.

This makes a lot of sense. A characteristic of our society is that we like to pretend that we aren't ever the agents of evil, so whenever wrongdoing by the "good guys" is exposed there's often a "shoot the messenger" type of reaction. Shows like BSG, which allow the viewer to see the heroes in an ambiguous light, can help make a less black and white and more truthful view of the world acceptable. Now that's probably still muddled. *g* In short, I see what you are saying and I agree.

[oiran.livejournal.com]

Seeing the sort of lynching photos you're talking about when I was somewhere around junior high age was completely horrifying - the kind of thing that makes you want to stop being a human and be anything else instead, just so as not to be associated with creatures that would do such a thing and then congratulate themselves for it. I'd end up driving myself crazy with wondering who was worse - people who think their monstrous acts are just and right and exhibit the evidence proudly, or those who at least show enough awareness of the wrongness of their behavior to try to hide their actions. Which makes Nazis morally superior to lynch mobs, and it's obviously fucked up to have the Nazis on the side of the angels in any argument.

Anyway, lynching snapshots aren't the only thing that made me a fatalist and cynic, but they certainly contributed.

I think what we Americans probably hate more than promoting or committing injustice is actually looking like people who promote or commit injustice. It's kind of bad to do it, but it's worse to be called on it.

I've long operated under the assumption that all governments/military organizations use torture when they believe it is warranted. The idiots at Guantanamo are being censured not so much for the mistreatment of prisoners, perhaps, but for taking pictures and getting caught.

[swanswan.livejournal.com]

I'm going to springboard too! Or, maybe, just use something you said to ask another question.

I'd make an arguement that in this day and age we are actually more sensitive to this kind of thing than we've ever been before. I mean, last time I checked, there weren't any groups of common American's gathering in crowds to watch a man be drawn and quartered for sheer amusement. The torture in Iraqi prisons was sadly pretty tame in comparison to what man has done to man historically.

See, for me, the shocking thing about the torture of people at Guantanamo was linked to the fact that, as you point out, torture isn't at all as prevalent as it used to be. Why? Because we're supposed to know better. We have human rights charters and prisoner of war protocols that were set up because western society is supposed to be based on a bedrock of humanitarian belief. Those laws have been contravened and abused by the very people (the american and british armies) who supposedly exist to protect them. That's what made those photographs shocking to me, and I think it does have some link to what Jed was saying - that it's about the perception of who the 'good guy' might really be. Because ideally, right, the good guy doesn't torture people, even 'bad' people, to get whatever he needs for the greater good. When he does, it's shocking, and as such I don't really see how it can contribute to the development of a blase attitude... right?

*has lost her point* Anyone see my point around here somewhere?

[rhiannonhero.livejournal.com]

I think I see your point. And I think I agree with you. I think. ;)

[oiran.livejournal.com]

See, for me, the shocking thing about the torture of people at Guantanamo was linked to the fact that, as you point out, torture isn't at all as prevalent as it used to be.

Do you really think that this is true, though? That there's less torture in reality, or that it's just not publicized? I'm very much a cynic on this count. I think what happened at Guantanamo was awful, but I think those soldiers a're being censured for being stupid, for taking pictures and getting caught, rather than for mistreating the prisoners in the first place. I can't imagine that there aren't other prisoners being mistreated currently, but probably watched over by smarter jailers - and no cameras allowed on base.

I was a small child at the end of the Vietnam War and remember watching the soldiers actually engaged in battle on the news. As everyone knows, the unpopularity of that "conflict" was in large part due to the fact that non-military personnel were seeing for the first time what war was really about. That kind of access seems unimaginable now, and incredibly naive on the part of the military. [/old person bitterly reminiscing] Um, point...? Point: Seeing carnage on TV did not make people think shooting and being shot by inscrutable foreigners was okay; rather the opposite.

So far as fictional characters torturing one another, I suppose most semi-intelligent, reasonably-sane people can tolerate televised depictions of fictional torture much more readily and calmly than scenes of actual torture. There are a few photographs of actual terrible things that once seen I could never un-see, and some of those still continue to give me nightmares. However, I can't think of any fictional atrocity that has its hooks that deep into my head. There are people who can't tell fact from fiction, of course, but there's something wrong with them. I'm sure it's really difficult for a parent when a child turns out to be a sociopath, but it's still not TV's fault.

I need an icon for talking about torture. All of these are too shiny and colorful.

[oiran.livejournal.com]

Watching that BSG episode, I found myself getting really pissed when they mentioned that they'd been going at the interrogation for eight hours, and yet they were only getting around to sticking his head in a bucket of water. Obviously, he was hit in the face prior to that (I think we saw just one punch, but there seemed to be evidence of multiple impacts on his face in later scenes), but inasmuch as this was a military interrogation in the face of possible destruction of the entire human race...it seemed tame and timid to me. That made me reassess Starbuck and draw a different conclusion about her character than maybe you did. They've been poking holes in her hard shell for the last few episodes it seems, and pointing out her bad judgment in multiple instances. She might be the best they have for these various situations...but she' really not particularly good at all of them.

However, I was also pleased (if that's the way to put it) that they did go ahead and torture a human face if not technically a human. That did highlight rather well both Starbuck's personal discomfort and the problems they all face in drawing lines between themselves and a "machine" that bleeds red and cries out in pain.

(And an aside: I was impressed by Madam President for the first time when she booted Callum Keith Rennie out the airlock. Maybe someday I'll stop seeing the actress as just Stands With A Fist in a skirt suit...)

I don't think we're going to be further desensitized, either. That did seem to be the general fear in the discussion I'd read, but I don't think that is likely. Or, rather, there's a difference between being desensitized to a given situation vs. accepting it as normal and appropriate. Having seen only the BSG and Lost versions of TV torture, it seems to be more about, oh, the difficulties of leadership, the moral ambiguities of conflict, and the emotional hurdles an otherwise humane person would face if torture were part of their job description, than it is about everyone shouting "Yay! Torture!"

I also agree about the mistreatment of Iraqi prisoners in terms of the overall history of torture methods. Compared to, say, the Spanish Inquisition or Dr. Mengele's labs, the U.S. military personnel involved come off as stupid, cruel children. It's still wrong, it's still bad, and they should still be punished. But I can't help thinking that they're not being punished for doing it in the first place, but for getting caught. I'm cynical enough that I never doubt that any military would perform torture in order to achieve its ends.

[vylit.livejournal.com]

The thing that I found interesting and that I liked is that Sayid really seems to realize to what extent his actions were wrong and actually does apologize to Sawyer in addition to leaving the group for a short period of time. Jack, while he does realize it was wrong, seems to... feel it less than Sayid, perhaps because he wasn't the one physically committing the act. I do agree that the timing and use of it in the show worked, but I've found that torture in television shows doesn't actually shock me anymore since it's seen rather often.

What I like about Lost is that it's embracing the dark/gray sides of its characters.

[oiran.livejournal.com]

You are correct about Sayid's regret and apology and Jack seeming to let it just pass by, at least when comparing him to Sayid. In whatever later episode it was, when Jack and Kate were leaving the "camp" and rather playfully jabbing at one another about the entire "making out" incident, the lighthearted tone was a bit weird, yet seemed entirely appropriate in that context. It's all very Lord of the Flies, which I am increasingly compelled to re-read after all these years...

I love moral ambiguity, at least in fictional people :)

It doesn't surprise me that a person could become used to fictional torture scenes. If something becomes upsetting, you can always remind yourself that it's not real, and I think the majority of people understand that the tiny actors in the magic box are just playing pretend. However, I seriously doubt that you'd be blase if you were viewing an actual torture scene. I understand people worrying about an audience becoming numbed to violence, but that really only happens with sociopaths and, despite my feelings about people as a general group, even I have to admit most aren't technically sociopathic :)

[devin-chain.livejournal.com]

Thanks for pointing the way to my lj. I'm enjoying the discussion immensely. Glad you have it going here now, too.

Hhhhmmmmm . . . they need an emoticon that shows thoughtfulness . . .

[polgarawolf.livejournal.com]

Hhhhmmm . . . The issue of torture being acceptable reminds me of a long standing off and on again discussion I have with my mom about the differences between actions that are moral and actions that are justifiable in the realm of politics. In this case, the torture as a means to an ends that is meant to good falls under the category of an action that has been "justified" by the politikers. It's not an action that is "moral" because the moral thing would be to go back and stop, by whatever means necessary that would result in less blood split overall, the conflict that has manifested itself in the reign of terror that the so-called "good" guys are attempted to fight off via methods of torture before things ever got to that point, whether such a preemptive action could be considered to be justified at that time or not. Does that make any sense? It's a bit late so my logic's probably a bit fuzzy.