STOP GENOCIDE – WE DO REJECT!

Last week, there was an information banner about abortion installed in front of the Masaryk
University of Social Science. Its main message was that abortion is a genocide. This is an example
of how the material artefact can trigger emotions and even cause a social action. In my paper, I
will analyse their argumentation and reflect what kind of reaction it caused among student of FSS.
In the end, I will add…

LOCATION

Firstly, I would like to discuss the location of this campaign. These posters have appeared mainly
in areas where young people gather e.g. in front of a university, in front of a medical secondary
school etc. The reason of this might be to challenge young people’s opinion about abortions. We
will see that installing such a campaign in front of our faculty opened a hot discussion. There was
a deep disgust because of misleading arguments. We might wonder why it was installed just in front
of this building. It might be because students have certain knowledge about societal and political
issues or because of the specific age group and its relation to abortions in general.

WE DO REJECT! That was the straight message which appeared very soon on Facebook page called
Sociologické nástupiště[1]. One of the student´s arguments was the lack of dignity of this
campaign: “This kind of display does not belong to academic campus or to its close surrounding. We
think that students are knowledgeable enough about this topic and do not need such a propagandistic
impulse to discuss this issue.” So to say, anger was one of the main reactions among students of
FSS as their opinion was that academic place should be free of any political or any other
propaganda.

Shock – guilt – disgust – all these emotions were flying in the area where these pictures comparing
abortion to a genocide were exposed. Shock was caused by the fact that students could see real
explicit pictures of unborn children’s bodies. Abstract concept of abortion got real shapes.
However, this campaign did not provoke the debate whether abortions are good or bad, which was
probably its aim. But instead it triggered disgust of campaign´s political argumentation.

In students’ opinion, the campaign did not respect certain boundaries. We can reflect certain
disruption between academic and public sphere. It is just this kind of blurring, disappearing and
crossing borders which Ulrich Beck considers to be typical for postmodern society. (Beck 2004)  The
outcome is conflict and tension in areas where we would not expect it before.




CONTENT AND INTENTION

“I do not understand what abortion has to do with socialism…”

One of the reasons why students felt offended was that this campaign was not presented as any
“normal” petition.  “It has a concrete content and intention – to evoke the notion that people who
agree with abortion or undergo it are murderers.” Therefore, students discussed the strategy of
discursive framing of abortion as a murder.

In this case, we can reflect that it is a discourse which becomes an object of student’s analysis.
Abu-Lughod claims that emotional discourse is an outcome of cultural context paved by social
projects. To analyse discourse we need to realize that it is an interaction between social and
political life. Language is a crucial article of dialog between these two worlds. It is pragmatic,
not referential. (Abu-Lughod 1990 )

The campaign was comparing killing and dying children in different political and cultural contexts.
For example, it compares killed children in Cambodia to aborted Czech children. In both cases, the
campaign uses the verb “to brutalize”. In this sense, we can reflect the power of language, which
evokes in us the notion of violence. Students felt that using the word genocide in this context is
rather too much.

Abortion is described as a plaque of modern possibility of choice. Language serves to present
abortion as genocidal illness of population. It is mainly the illness of our thought which is
wrong, because we do finance this murdering from our taxation.( http://stopgenocide.cz) There are
many metaphors which try to highlight the aspect that this kind of behaviour undermines “normal
system”.

The normal is socially construed by this campaign as the right to live. According to Susan Sontag
“Disease has long served as metaphors, which should give greater clarity to the allegation that the
society is corrupt or unjust.” (Sontag 1997: 71)  Such a metaphoric description can be reflect in
campaign presenting gulag, famine and abortion as different kind of socialistic genocide. Abortion
is perceived as an illness which creates imbalance in political way of meaning. Picture of death
children on the coin with the LIBERAL SOCIALISM puts the emphasis on the state. According to
Machiavelli, it is the state which should protect their citizens from disease - social crisis.
State should avoid any kind of social unrest trough rational action. (Machiavelli in Sontag 1997:
74)

Language influences our reality. We believe in a specific language, define the world through
language as well as ourselves. The importance of language is mirrored in the word of experts who
present their views of diverse topics to the general public and might affect human behaviour.

In the opinion of the page Sociologické nástupiště, this way of seeing abortion is very simplified:
“They present sensitive debate trough prejudice or denial of the values of social justice, which is
very simplifying.” It tries to evoke the feeling of guilt in a passer-by. On the other hand, shall
we raise a question - „isn’t any kind of campaign based on emotions and simplification?”

Emotionality is produced through the objects of photos which have a great power: “…these photos
create a discussion. We were not the first school where this campaign evoked an offense. I think
that there is a certain consensus that this campaign is far too much.”

Campaign can be perceived as a social interaction, where vital process of embodiment takes place.
Emotions are learned, felt and interpreted and so get their relevance. (Svašek 2007: 230)

Based on this cocktail of emotions, I called into the question whether emotions are universal or
culturally specific. Because on the one hand, we could reflect that students have similar emotions
about the campaign, on the other hand, the inner impulse - to feel disgust or anger – differed.

It might be because „the admissibility abortion is typical questions of general interest, where
people have very conflicting views”. Their attitudes are shaped by moral and religious believes,
based on their values and experiences – all of these lead to controversies which are basically
unsolvable.

Based on that, we could agree with Evans who claims that culture influences our ways of expression
of emotion. (Evans 2001) Students might be considered as individuals with a certain cultural
capital. They have certain knowledge trough witch they perceive the campaign as complex
information. Any passer-by might have similar basic emotions – disgust, guilt, fear etc. However,
it is followed by the question how they display it. In this case, we do not have to think about
different cultures in terms of different nations.  It can be just people with different societal
status and education who represent different cultures. Their cultural and economic capital will
differ as well as their opinions about abortion. (Bourdieu 1998)

Therefore, the answer to the question „what bothers you on this campaign“ would probably differ.
According to discussion group on Facebook, it is an important question which everybody should
answer to him/herself: „I personally protest on most matters associated with Christianity. There is
little evidence of loving your neighbour, forgiveness and mercy, but rather there is tendency to
blame someone. Being a Christian myself, it bothers me.” In Abu-Lughod´s interpretation, we could
say that emotions are tokens in construction of our subjectivity.  (Abu-lughod 1990 )

In this case, emotions of students cannot be categorized just as a biological response of their
body or an intrapersonal mental state. To answer through the lenses of Cartesian dualism body-mind
is too simplifying. Discussions on Facebook mirror Svašek´s opinions that emotions are moral acts,
shaped by an inner dialogue. The Campaign started up an emotional process which was based on moral
judgement influenced by sociocultural dynamics. (Svašek 2007: 230)

Photos of emotions aim to create a bridge between past and present. They embody material engagement
through the active images. One part of the campaign is material characteristics. Photos of real
unborn children evoke very authentic feelings and confront us with the question of life and death.

We can track a very similar line of controversies as in the case of displaying anatomical
specimens. In that case, real corpses of body parts became part of an exhibition. It created
debates about death bodies. How should we discursively frame it?  As „souls” or „people” with
certain rights? (Svašek 2007: 336)

Similar debates were run among students in this campaign; however, emotional agency did not
question the rightness of abortion, but rather focused on the context of it. In students’ eyes, the
campaign lacked a legitimate status to justify their opinion linking abortion to a genocide.

We could compare this campaign to an exhibition where dead parts of bodies became a part of an
anthropological research. Dead heads were installed as a part of an ethnographic study. It provoked
a hot discussion about morals since these objects were symbols of horror in the studied ethnicity.
Heads were cut as a threat to an enemy in a primitive nation, however, after a certain ritual, it
became just an empty object for this culture. Furthermore, in Western context, this exhibition
evoked waves of cruelty, hatred, questions about such a „primitive act” and accusations of a
primitive race. (Svašek 2007: 341)

Also the Stop-genocide campaign has a different context – the political massacre in former
Yugoslavia is compared to contemporary politics of the EU. Genocide in Rwanda is put on the same
level of guilt as the abortion in the Czech Republic. Comparing different political context
produces not just a guilt of thinking that abortion might be right in certain circumstances, but it
makes people feel guilty even for situations she/he could not affect.

Therefore, we could call the campaign an emotionally evocative symbol of political-religious
opinions. Death becomes a political statement just as in the case of Jan Palach. We know from
history as well as from Svašek´s reading that by burning himself, Palach became a part of a
political narrative, a symbol of struggling with forms of oppression. After 89, his memorial became
a physical symbol of collective suffering. Until nowadays, just passing by Jan Palachs´ memorial,
it evokes waves of freedom, democracy or feeling of pride. (Svašek 2007: 332)

However, we can see that political intentions are not always something that can legitimize the
death argument of a social order. In the Stop-genocide campaign, political implications of death
have an opposite effect. We might speculate what the response would be if that message was
presented in a different context. It is a scientific legitimizing power and argumentation which is
missing. How the campaign might be perceived by students if it is presented by doctor, for example.
What might be students’ arguments if it was pro-life doctors who put real facts, pictures about
abortion? How might the atmosphere about the whole campaign change?

DNA MYSTIQUE – sekularizace, AR

In the whole campaign, we can reflect certain links between genetic material (embryo) and a
Christian soul. Advocates of this pro-life campaign perceive the DNA of an unborn child as a sacred
soul. It was science which started to describe the human genome as The Bible. Molecular structure
started to be used as an explanation for the natural and moral order. (Nelkin, Lindee 2004: 39)

This started off the secularization of religion and the consolidation of the power of science.
Scientific DNA reached similar meaning as the biblical soul. DNA has several characteristic similar
to the immortal Christian soul which is not a coincidence. DNA became an icon, a secularized
equivalent of spiritual soul. (Nelkin, Lindee 2004: 50)

In many states, DNA is a taboo. It is a topic where people should not have the right to decide
which kind of cell should survive. Individuals should definitely not play the role of God. However,
this is exactly the process which happens when DNA is sacralised in the name of science.

We can see this taboo in this pro-life campaign. According to demagogic statements, we could claim
that the campaign does not agree with implementing religious discourse of DNA into the secular.

This campaign uses an embryo as a cultural icon which is abused, misused. The scientific knowledge
and possibilities of science is perceived as an abuse of a sacred territory.

TO SUM UP

On the other hand, we can also highlight the positive impact of campaign. Students saw the campaign
as a challenge of public sociology: „responding to the growing gap between the sociological ethos
and the world we study, we could organize conference about public and symbolic sphere focused on
pro-life social movement in the Czech Republic.”

To conclude, we might ask whether the campaign reached its aim – it shocked, it triggered disgust
and guilt. Moreover, it opened a live discussion among students which will probably lead to a
certain socio-political action in the form of a conference.



RESOURCES


ABU-LUGHOD, L., 1990. Shifting politics in Bedouin love poetry. In: C.A.Lutz and

L.Abu-Lughod. Language and the politics of emotion. [...]: Cambridge University

Press and Fondation de la Maison des Sciences de l'Homme.

BECK, U. 2004.  Risk society. Praha: SLON.

BOURDIEU, P. 1998. Teorie jednání. Praha: Karolinum.

DIXON, T., 2003. Introduction: From passions and affections to emotions. In: From

passions to emotions: The creation of a secular psychological category.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1-27.


EVANS, D., 2001. The Universal Language. In: Emotion. The science of sentiment.

New York: Oxford University Press, 1-30.


NELKIN, D., & Lindee, M. S. (2004). The DNA mystique: the gene as a cultural

icon:[with a new preface and conclusion]. University of Michigan Press (kapitola 1,

str. 1 - 19, a kapitola 10, str. 192 - 204).

SVAŠEK, M., 2007[...]. Moving corpses: Emotions and the subject-object ambiguity.

In: H.Wulff: The emotions: Cultural reader. Oxford, New York: Berg

SONTAG, S. 1997. Illness as metaphor, AIDS its metaphors. Praha: Mladá fronta.
________________________________

[1] Available from: https://www.facebook.com/soc.nastupiste/posts/814842771888267