Synopses & Reviews
You see someone smoking a cigarette and say,“Smoking is bad for your health,” when what you mean is, “You are a bad person because you smoke.” You encounter someone whose body size you deem excessive, and say, “Obesity is bad for your health,” when what you mean is, “You are lazy, unsightly, or weak of will.” You see a woman bottle-feeding an infant and say,“Breastfeeding is better for that child's health,” when what you mean is that the woman must be a bad parent. You see the smokers, the overeaters, the bottle-feeders, and affirm your own health in the process. In these and countless other instances, the perception of your own health depends in part on your value judgments about others, and appealing to health allows for a set of moral assumptions to fly stealthily under the radar.
Against Health argues that health is a concept, a norm, and a set of bodily practices whose ideological work is often rendered invisible by the assumption that it is a monolithic, universal good. And, that disparities in the incidence and prevalence of disease are closely linked to disparities in income and social support. To be clear, the book's stand against health is not a stand against the authenticity of people's attempts to ward off suffering. Against Health instead claims that individual strivings for health are, in some instances, rendered more difficult by the ways in which health is culturally configured and socially sustained.
The book intervenes into current political debates about health in two ways. First, Against Health compellingly unpacks the divergent cultural meanings of health and explores the ideologies involved in its construction. Second, the authors present strategies for moving forward. They ask, what new possibilities and alliances arise? What new forms of activism or coalition can we create? What are our prospects for well-being? In short, what have we got if we ain't got health? Against Health ultimately argues that the conversations doctors, patients, politicians, activists, consumers, and policymakers have about health are enriched by recognizing that, when talking about health, they are not all talking about the same thing. And, that articulating the disparate valences of “health” can lead to deeper, more productive, and indeed more healthy interactions about our bodies.
Review
"...an accomplished, comprehensive, and provocative new history of censorship and the American film industry....All show business, suggests Lewis, is make-believe veiling the real power structure that has nothing to do with morals, let alone art (it would be interesting to get his take on the recent marketing brouhaha and its relationship to the recent threatened actors and writers strikes). A staggering saga worthy itself of a Hollywood movie, Hollywood v. Hardcore is film history at its most illuminating and intense." The Boston Phoenix
Review
"When it comes to censorship in Hollywood, the bottom line is the ticket line. That's the central message in Jon Lewis's provocativeand insightful investigation of the movie industry's history of self-regulation.…Lewis shows that Hollywood films are a triumph ofcommerce over art, and that the film industry has consistently used internal censorship and government-industrial collusion to guaranteethat its cash flow is never seriously threatened."
"…an accomplished, comprehensive, and provocative new history of censorship and the American film industry…And what of the perennialtussles between politicos and the film industry? All show business, suggests Lewis, make-believe veiling the real power structure that hasnothing to do with morals, let alone art (it would be interesting to get his take on the recent marketing brouhaha and its relationship tothe recent threatened actors and writers strikes). A staggering saga worthy itself of a Hollywood movie, Hollywood v. Hardcore is filmhistory at its most illuminating and intense."
"As provocative as his sometimes X-rated subject matter, film scholar Lewis detects an intimate relationship between the seemingly strange bedfellows of mainstream Hollywood cinema and hardcore pornography. From postal inspector Anthony Comstock to virtue maven William Bennett, from the Hays Office that monitored the golden age of Hollywood to the alphabet ratings system that labels the motion pictures in today's multiplex malls, Lewis's wry, informative, and always insightful study of American film censorship demonstrates that the most effective media surveillance happens before you see the movie. Hollywood v. Hard Core is highly recommended for audiences of all ages."
"Jon Lewis weaves a compelling narrative of how box office needs-rather than moral strictures-have dictated the history of film regulation. Telling the complex and fascinating story of how Hollywood abandoned the Production Code and developed the ratings system and then telling the even more compelling story of how the X rating became a desirable marketing device when hard core pornography became popular, Hollywood v. Hard Core reveals a great deal about the true business of censorship."
"This is a fascinating account, both entertaining and scholarly."
Review
"[T]his collection of essays reexamines the definition of 'health,' particularly as a mechanism for moral judgment... Lots of food for thought- this highly philosophical book... will be of interest to those wanting to stretch their views on health care."-Library Journal,
Review
"[A]n important new book." -Psychology Today-,
Review
“A powerful group of essays, and the topics addressed in the respective chapters are interesting, insightful, and thought-provoking.”
-David Serlin,author of Replaceable You: Engineering the Body in Postwar America
Review
"From obesity to mental health to pharmacology, the essays explore the ways in which "public" health translates increasingly as a moral judgement of behavior."-Society Magazine,Society Magazine
Review
"These essays are well-researched and supported, and this volume is suitable for academic study -- in sociology, bioethics public health and public policy. It is also remarkably well written and engaging, and makes its sophisticated theoretical premises readily accessible to a wide audience."-Lisa Bellatoni,Metapsychology Reviews
Synopsis
In 1972,
The Godfather and
Deep Throat were the two most popular films in the country. One, a major Hollywood studio production, the other an independently made "skin flick." At that moment, Jon Lewis asserts, the fate of the American film industry hung in the balance.
Spanning the 20th century, Hollywood v. Hard Core weaves a gripping tale of censorship and regulation. Since the industry's infancy, film producers and distributors have publicly regarded ratings codes as a necessary evil. Hollywood regulates itself, we have been told, to prevent the government from doing it for them. But Lewis argues that the studios self-regulate because they are convinced it is good for business, and that censorship codes and regulations are a crucial part of what binds the various competing agencies in the film business together.
Yet between 1968 and 1973 Hollywood films were faltering at the box office, and the major studios were in deep trouble. Hollywood's principal competition came from a body of independently produced and distributed films from foreign art house film Last Tango in Paris to hard-core pornography like Behind the Green Door that were at once disreputable and, for a moment at least, irresistible, even chic. In response, Hollywood imposed the industry-wide MPAA film rating system (the origins of the G, PG, and R designations we have today) that pushed sexually explicit films outside the mainstream, and a series of Supreme Court decisions all but outlawed the theatrical exhibition of hard core pornographic films. Together, these events allowed Hollywood to consolidate its iron grip over what films got made and where they were shown, thus saving it from financial ruin.
Synopsis
A tale of censorship and regulation at the heart of the modern film industry
In 1972, The Godfather and Deep Throat were the two most popular films in the country. One, a major Hollywood studio production, the other an independently made skin flick. At that moment, Jon Lewis asserts, the fate of the American film industry hung in the balance.
Spanning the 20th century, Hollywood v. Hard Core weaves a gripping tale of censorship and regulation. Since the industry's infancy, film producers and distributors have publicly regarded ratings codes as a necessary evil. Hollywood regulates itself, we have been told, to prevent the government from doing it for them. But Lewis argues that the studios self-regulate because they are convinced it is good for business, and that censorship codes and regulations are a crucial part of what binds the various competing agencies in the film business together.
Yet between 1968 and 1973 Hollywood films were faltering at the box office, and the major studios were in deep trouble. Hollywood's principal competition came from a body of independently produced and distributed films--from foreign art house film Last Tango in Paris to hard-core pornography like Behind the Green Door--that were at once disreputable and, for a moment at least, irresistible, even chic. In response, Hollywood imposed the industry-wide MPAA film rating system (the origins of the G, PG, and R designations we have today) that pushed sexually explicit films outside the mainstream, and a series of Supreme Court decisions all but outlawed the theatrical exhibition of hard core pornographic films. Together, these events allowed Hollywood to consolidate its iron grip over what films got made and where they were shown, thus saving it from financial ruin.
Synopsis
Between 1968 and 1973 Hollywood films were faltering at the box office, and the major studios were in big trouble. Hollywood's principal competition came from a body of independently produced and distributed films like Last Tango in Paris and hard-core pornography like Behind the Green Door. These films were at once disreputable and chic. In response, Hollywood imposed the industry-wide MPAA film rating system that pushed sexually explicit films outside the mainstream, and a series of Supreme Court decisions all but outlawed the theatrical exhibition of hard-core pornographic films. Together, these events allowed Hollywood to extend its iron grip over which films got made and where they were shown, thus saving it from financial ruin.
Synopsis
A revealing look at the history of censorship in Hollywood and the legal and cultural battle between Hollywood's big studios and "pornography."West Coast author tour.
Synopsis
In 1972,
The Godfather and
Deep Throat were the two most popular films in the country. One, a major Hollywood studio production, the other an independently made "skin flick." At that moment, Jon Lewis asserts, the fate of the American film industry hung in the balance.
Spanning the 20th century, Hollywood v. Hard Core weaves a gripping tale of censorship and regulation. Since the industry's infancy, film producers and distributors have publicly regarded ratings codes as a necessary evil. Hollywood regulates itself, we have been told, to prevent the government from doing it for them. But Lewis argues that the studios self-regulate because they are convinced it is good for business, and that censorship codes and regulations are a crucial part of what binds the various competing agencies in the film business together.
Yet between 1968 and 1973 Hollywood films were faltering at the box office, and the major studios were in deep trouble. Hollywood's principal competition came from a body of independently produced and distributed films--from foreign art house film Last Tango in Paris to hard-core pornography like Behind the Green Door--that were at once disreputable and, for a moment at least, irresistible, even chic. In response, Hollywood imposed the industry-wide MPAA film rating system (the origins of the G, PG, and R designations we have today) that pushed sexually explicit films outside the mainstream, and a series of Supreme Court decisions all but outlawed the theatrical exhibition of hard core pornographic films. Together, these events allowed Hollywood to consolidate its iron grip over what films got made and where they were shown, thus saving it from financial ruin.
About the Author
Jonathan M. Metzl is associate professor in the women's studies department and the department of psychiatry at the University of Michigan, where he also directs the program in culture, Health, and medicine. He is the author of
Prozac on the Couch: Prescribing Gender in the Era of Wonder Drugs and
Protest Psychosis: How Schizophrenia Became a Black Disease. Anna Kirkland is Associate Professor of Womens Studies and Political Science at the University of Michigan. She is the author of Fat Rights: Dilemmas of Difference and Personhood(NYU Press).