I always wondered what the riot at "The Rite of Spring" was about!
I think pornography is already the commodification of something that shouldn't be commodified. As I said in a comment on Mary Harrington's Substack, I think the jump from "not having sex on camera" to "having sex on camera" is a bigger leap than the one from "having sex with one man on camera" to "having sex with one hundred men on camera."
And, yes, I think most/all work is going (back) this way, sadly. I don't know what the solution is. I think most people (including myself) do not produce a good or service that is worth terribly much in itself, only in bulk.
By the way, I recently started a new, more socio-political Substack that you might find interesting here https://danielgsaunders.substack.com/ . I think I'm still finding my feet with it.
I have just subscribed to your new Substack. I agree that having sex on camera is the essential jump into commodification. I think that what Lily Philips's extreme undertaking helps to deconstruct is the claim that many people in the porn industry make that they enjoy what they are doing. When they are having sex with just one other person in front of the camera, that claim could (or could not) be true, and we do not have a definite way of knowing. However, when it comes to 100 men in a day--with the goal of 1000 in 24 hours--it is impossible for me to give her the benefit of the doubt that she is actually enjoying the sexual act under those circumstances. What she is enjoying (or is perhaps addicted to) is likely the enormous amounts of money that she is reportedly making and the attention that she is getting. And unfortunately in many (much less lucrative) lines of work, people find themselves in situations in which they like the actual work but do not enjoy the pressure of doing so much of it under a great deal of time pressure. In some ways, Philips's decision to put herself under time pressure to "accommodate" as many men as possible is a symbol of what has been happening in many lines of work in which a task that could be meaningful becomes "robotic" because of the amount of work that ends up taking place under time pressure. But I do agree that the comparison is far from a perfect one because when it comes to pornography, there is no "wholesomeness" to begin with because even one act in front of the camera already commodifies something that should not be commodified--whereas in professional activities such as writing, research, teaching, healthcare or other services, relieving the time pressure could alleviate the risk of feeling robotic. In other words, these professions can be wholesome, but they need to be protected from excessive commodification so that people can make a decent living even without taking on excessive amounts of work.
I agree, but I think “addicted” is a key word — whether it’s addiction to attention, fame or notoriety or to some kind of exhibitionism, I think there is more going on here than just money.
I agree that there is more going on than money. One of the things that I found difficult to watch in the interview is that she seemed genuinely disappointed with the fact that she was not able to give each man her full attention--but isn't this inherent in the nature of what she undertook to do? It felt like a lament for dehumanization within a context that set out from the start to dehumanize and commodify.
I’m reminded here of David Graeber’s “Bullshit Jobs” from 2018; David Orr’s essay, “Slow Knowledge” and Daniel Kahneman’s “Thinking, Fast and Slow”. But the icing on this cake is your metaphor of AI as “colonization”. Hearty congratulations, Gefen, on this outstanding piece of work. Good work! (Which is actually another book that comes to mind.)
If you believe voluntary prostitution is comparable to work and can consequently be reasonably compared one to another, then, unless you are engaging in cognitive dissonance, workers other than prostitutes whose work is equal to the "work" of prostitutes, are voluntarily prostituting themselves as well and the entire working world is comprised of nothing but willing prostitutes and prostitution.
Otherwise your reasoning breaks down rather quickly.
While I have no interest in condemning the woman you use as example, I do pity her. And anyone who can't see this for what it plainly is.
Self-destructive degradation. It has no bearing on me if the individual perpetrating these things on themselves "feels" that way or not as feelings are fleeting and no dependable guide for much of anything other than momentary pain or pleasure.
What I don't know and am giving a benefit of doubt is why you are wasting your time and talents writing on this subject. Oh, well.
Her tears and disassociations are no surprise. They are expressions of trauma. There are many types and kinds of trauma and just because they produce similar reactions to the trauma of the woman in your article does not mean all trauma is the same trauma or comes from the same causes or are equal in nature or kind.
I don't see a logical comparison in the article but do see a sensational one.
Thank you for the thought-provoking comment. I agree that comparing what Lily Philips has done to work "in general" is indeed flawed because most work is inherently meaningful and wholesome, and also most work does not provide the immoral possibility to make an extraordinary amount of money over a short time period by doing something extremely degrading as she did to herself. It is also true that perhaps not writing about what she has done is the better course of action instead of giving it attention, which indeed had sensationalistic potential. At the same time, I do consider what she has done to be an extreme cultural event, and cultural events of all kinds sometimes provide insight into the cultural moment in which they take place. I am concerned that many lines of work are becoming more commodified than they should be--so intuitively Lily Philips's extreme commodification of herself reminded me of the sadness, trauma and loss that can result when commodification is pushed too far. Dedication to work is a very important value and is definitely not prostitution, but when work is excessively commodified, there is a risk of something pleasurable and meaningful becoming robotic. Despite the limitations of the comparison, the Lily Philips documentary has reminded me of the dangers of "roboticism." Do we need Lily Philips to remind us of the problems of excessive commodification? No; it is certainly possible to write about this subject without reference to her, but it happened to be the case that when I saw her tearful interview, it made me think about commodification more broadly, so I decided to write about the ideas as they came to my mind. Perhaps it is sensationalizing, but I like to write based on my train of thought even if it has some logical gaps that can be pointed out and challenged by critical readers.
I always wondered what the riot at "The Rite of Spring" was about!
I think pornography is already the commodification of something that shouldn't be commodified. As I said in a comment on Mary Harrington's Substack, I think the jump from "not having sex on camera" to "having sex on camera" is a bigger leap than the one from "having sex with one man on camera" to "having sex with one hundred men on camera."
And, yes, I think most/all work is going (back) this way, sadly. I don't know what the solution is. I think most people (including myself) do not produce a good or service that is worth terribly much in itself, only in bulk.
By the way, I recently started a new, more socio-political Substack that you might find interesting here https://danielgsaunders.substack.com/ . I think I'm still finding my feet with it.
I have just subscribed to your new Substack. I agree that having sex on camera is the essential jump into commodification. I think that what Lily Philips's extreme undertaking helps to deconstruct is the claim that many people in the porn industry make that they enjoy what they are doing. When they are having sex with just one other person in front of the camera, that claim could (or could not) be true, and we do not have a definite way of knowing. However, when it comes to 100 men in a day--with the goal of 1000 in 24 hours--it is impossible for me to give her the benefit of the doubt that she is actually enjoying the sexual act under those circumstances. What she is enjoying (or is perhaps addicted to) is likely the enormous amounts of money that she is reportedly making and the attention that she is getting. And unfortunately in many (much less lucrative) lines of work, people find themselves in situations in which they like the actual work but do not enjoy the pressure of doing so much of it under a great deal of time pressure. In some ways, Philips's decision to put herself under time pressure to "accommodate" as many men as possible is a symbol of what has been happening in many lines of work in which a task that could be meaningful becomes "robotic" because of the amount of work that ends up taking place under time pressure. But I do agree that the comparison is far from a perfect one because when it comes to pornography, there is no "wholesomeness" to begin with because even one act in front of the camera already commodifies something that should not be commodified--whereas in professional activities such as writing, research, teaching, healthcare or other services, relieving the time pressure could alleviate the risk of feeling robotic. In other words, these professions can be wholesome, but they need to be protected from excessive commodification so that people can make a decent living even without taking on excessive amounts of work.
I agree, but I think “addicted” is a key word — whether it’s addiction to attention, fame or notoriety or to some kind of exhibitionism, I think there is more going on here than just money.
I agree that there is more going on than money. One of the things that I found difficult to watch in the interview is that she seemed genuinely disappointed with the fact that she was not able to give each man her full attention--but isn't this inherent in the nature of what she undertook to do? It felt like a lament for dehumanization within a context that set out from the start to dehumanize and commodify.
I’m reminded here of David Graeber’s “Bullshit Jobs” from 2018; David Orr’s essay, “Slow Knowledge” and Daniel Kahneman’s “Thinking, Fast and Slow”. But the icing on this cake is your metaphor of AI as “colonization”. Hearty congratulations, Gefen, on this outstanding piece of work. Good work! (Which is actually another book that comes to mind.)
Thank you so much, Laurent, for your kind response and enriching references. All the best, Gefen
If you believe voluntary prostitution is comparable to work and can consequently be reasonably compared one to another, then, unless you are engaging in cognitive dissonance, workers other than prostitutes whose work is equal to the "work" of prostitutes, are voluntarily prostituting themselves as well and the entire working world is comprised of nothing but willing prostitutes and prostitution.
Otherwise your reasoning breaks down rather quickly.
While I have no interest in condemning the woman you use as example, I do pity her. And anyone who can't see this for what it plainly is.
Self-destructive degradation. It has no bearing on me if the individual perpetrating these things on themselves "feels" that way or not as feelings are fleeting and no dependable guide for much of anything other than momentary pain or pleasure.
What I don't know and am giving a benefit of doubt is why you are wasting your time and talents writing on this subject. Oh, well.
Her tears and disassociations are no surprise. They are expressions of trauma. There are many types and kinds of trauma and just because they produce similar reactions to the trauma of the woman in your article does not mean all trauma is the same trauma or comes from the same causes or are equal in nature or kind.
I don't see a logical comparison in the article but do see a sensational one.
Thank you for the thought-provoking comment. I agree that comparing what Lily Philips has done to work "in general" is indeed flawed because most work is inherently meaningful and wholesome, and also most work does not provide the immoral possibility to make an extraordinary amount of money over a short time period by doing something extremely degrading as she did to herself. It is also true that perhaps not writing about what she has done is the better course of action instead of giving it attention, which indeed had sensationalistic potential. At the same time, I do consider what she has done to be an extreme cultural event, and cultural events of all kinds sometimes provide insight into the cultural moment in which they take place. I am concerned that many lines of work are becoming more commodified than they should be--so intuitively Lily Philips's extreme commodification of herself reminded me of the sadness, trauma and loss that can result when commodification is pushed too far. Dedication to work is a very important value and is definitely not prostitution, but when work is excessively commodified, there is a risk of something pleasurable and meaningful becoming robotic. Despite the limitations of the comparison, the Lily Philips documentary has reminded me of the dangers of "roboticism." Do we need Lily Philips to remind us of the problems of excessive commodification? No; it is certainly possible to write about this subject without reference to her, but it happened to be the case that when I saw her tearful interview, it made me think about commodification more broadly, so I decided to write about the ideas as they came to my mind. Perhaps it is sensationalizing, but I like to write based on my train of thought even if it has some logical gaps that can be pointed out and challenged by critical readers.
Thank you. Excellent reply in my estimation. Not only does it help me understand your perspective more fully but it made me think more fully on mine.
I'm looking forward to reading more of your articles. God Bless.
Thank you so much!