AWA: Academic Writing at Auckland

Danish artist-cum-activist, Morten Traavik, has been a figure of controversy in recent years, for his role in conceiving a beauty pageant unlike any other. ‘Miss Landmine’, Traavik’s brainchild, follows a similar premise to most Western beauty pageants, with the added stipulation that contestants be survivors of landmine disasters – and bear the amputations to prove it. Traavik insists that his work promotes “disabled pride and empowerment”,[1] and while this has earned him the praise of supporters, many others have been scandalised by the insensitivity of his scheme. After being largely well received in the war-ravaged, landmine-capital of Angola, Miss Landmine was scheduled to take on Cambodia in 2009. Despite a promising start, however, the project was met with animosity from the Cambodian government and several local advocacy groups, who inevitably terminated its proceedings.

Amongst the criticisms aimed at Traavik and his pageant, were claims that the contestants were used, and their suffering was exploited. Yet, it has also been argued that the media-circus generated by the project, catalyzed a new-wave of social consciousness with regards to disabled rights and landmine clearance initiatives. Apparently open for ethical interpretation, the moral credibility of Miss Landmine can be explored in relation to two conflicting principles: Kantianism and Utilitarianism. Kantian law forbids the use of human beings as ‘a means to an end’,[2] whereas Utilitarianism values any course of action that promotes the greatest overall happiness, irrespective of the costs incurred. The virtues and vices of these separate theories, provide a sound basis for an assessment of the virtues and vices of the Miss Landmine project. Only then, may we derive whether it be a morally sound, or morally bankrupt enterprise.

In his masterwork The Elements of Moral Philosophy, esteemed twentieth-century philosopher, James Rachels, describes the basic mechanics of Utilitarian theory.

“First, we envision a certain state of affairs that we would like to see come about – a state of affairs in which all people are as happy and well-off as they can be. The primary rule of morality then, is to act so as to bring about this state of affairs, insofar as that is possible. In deciding what to do, we should, therefore, ask what course of conduct would promote the greatest amount of happiness for all those who will be affected. Morality requires that we do what is best from that point of view”.[3]

The Utilitarian doctrine, paraphrased here by Rachels, came about as a sort-of hybridisation of the ideas of scholars Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832), and John Stuart Mill (1806-1873). The latter, in particular, propelled the evolution of Utilitarianism, by imbuing the theory with his fundamental belief that “happiness is desirable, and the only thing desirable, as an end; all other things being desirable as a means to that end”.[4] In attempting to establish the ethical legitimacy of the Miss Landmine project, we might, therefore, consider the ratio of happiness to unhappiness caused to all persons involved – whether directly, or indirectly.

According to its manifesto, a primary aim of the Miss Landmine project, is to educate people on landmine awareness.[5] Additionally, the project's potential capacity to redefine concepts of both beauty, and disability, comes across as a central motivation of pageant organiser, Morton Traavik. Through his work, Traavik essentially implores countries, like Cambodia, to abandon the cultural and social prejudices that are causing such an obstacle to national progression. Such objectives quite clearly encompass a pursuit of happiness, or 'utility', of the sort that would make Bentham and Mill proud. Indeed, by Traavik's formula, the Miss Landmine project proposes an increase in happiness for an infinite number of people, not merely the ultimate pageant winner. Unplaced contestants are recognised as being beautiful in the face of adversity, and – possibly for the first time – are invited to relish in the celebration of their survivor-status. Other disabled and marginalised groups can witness, and be encouraged by, the project's victory over discriminatory attitudes. Arguably though, people living in landmine contaminated areas the world over, will be set to benefit most significantly from Miss Landmine, due to the initiative's potential to influence legislation for landmine clearance and control.

Of course, in bringing about such a plethora of positive consequences, the question of ‘collateral damage’ must be raised. So to what extent, if any, does Miss Landmine exploit or undermine its participants and associates, in order for its primary objectives to be realised? In the midst of the furore in Cambodia, Pisey Ly, of the Cambodian Women’s Network for Unity, strongly condemned the pageant on the grounds that contestants were “used as tools to draw public attention to the [landmine] issue, but did not receive actual benefits from their participation”.[6] This was not an isolated criticism, the same sentiment being shared (eventually, at least), by Cambodia’s Prime Minister, other key governmental staff, and representatives of the Cambodian League for the Defence and Protection of Human Rights, all of whom also objected to the purportedly ‘undignified’ portrayal of the women, and their disabilities.[7] Such responses can not have been helped, by suspicions that the artist Traavik, a self-appointed “middle-class white boy from a privileged society with an itch to do something to save the world”, [8] was equally as concerned with creating, in essence, a ‘human art-installation’, as he was with bettering the lives of others. Traavik does, in fact, confess that he sees his art and his activism as being non-mutually exclusive, but he justifies the duality of his scheme with a proclamation of transparency: “The ladies participating are fully aware that this is more than a mere beauty pageant, that they are employed as my fellow artists in a campaign where a main aim is to influence some attitudes, both outside and within themselves”.[9]

Still, such an explanation would not have been satisfactory by Kantian standards. Kant believed that as rational beings, all humans have a moral duty to adhere to a ‘categorical imperative’, a universal code-of-conduct that remains fixed in all circumstances.[10] As part of this code-of-conduct, Kant’s expectation was that we “act so as to treat humanity, whether in [our] own person or in that of any other, in every case at the same time, as an end, never as a means only”.[11] With regards to Miss Landmine, Morten Traavik’s off-handed retort that “the end justifies the means”, seems, therefore, to be an absolute contradiction of morality. And consequently, the tirade of complaints aimed at Traavik, by Cambodian leaders and human-rights outfits, appears to reflect a concern for the virtue of the contestants. With government decision-makers simply acting on behalf of Kantian law, the banning of Miss Landmine was, it could be said, firmly rooted in moral principle.

From an ethical standpoint, this argument may have its merits, but in the case of Miss Landmine, it emerges as flawed and unconvincing, based on the follow-up comments of the project’s naysayers.  Rather than acting in accordance with Kant’s ‘respect for persons’ philosophy, Prime Minister Hun Sen proved to be one of the main perpetrators of Kantian law himself, when, in the wake of his decision to ban the Miss Landmine pageant, he delivered the menacing edict that he would punish dissenters by “chopping them one hundred times with a meat cleaver”.[12] Such a violent warning seems quite strongly to suggest, that Hun Sen’s concern was not for protecting “the honour of the disabled”,[13] but instead for protecting an authoritarian governmental regime, wary of any externally-influenced, non-conformist activity. Having impinged on the ‘freedom of choice’ of the pageant’s participants, the impact of Hun Sen’s ruling is reflected in the words of one candidate, Song Kosal, who concedes "I feel unhappy because when the party was cancelled it meant that I, a disabled person, lost my right of expression".[14]

The banning of the Miss Landmine pageant, irrevocably cost many people their happiness, while paying no respect for their ‘intrinsic worth’. On this count, we can resolve that there be nothing morally redeeming about the decision, from both a Kantian, and a Utilitarian perspective. To get two such conflicting philosophies to arrive at the same verdict, surely must say something of that verdict's absolute conclusiveness; but conversely, a final judgement as to the morality of the pageant itself, may never be unanimously agreed upon. Unsurprisingly, Morten Traavik has maintained that his intentions are honourable, and when measured against the intentions of other involved parties, his credibility certainly resonates above the rest. Whether this is enough to fully nullify all further objections to his work, however, is entirely unlikely.

Perhaps, rather than examining the situation through the lenses of Kant and Utility, an understanding of the theory of Cultural Relativity, would better serve to proffer an explanation for Miss Landmine’s ethical ambiguity. As James Rachels notes, “different cultures have different moral codes. What is right within one group may be utterly abhorrent to the members of another group, and vice versa".[15] Despite the organisers’ efforts in practising cultural sensitivity, aspects of the Miss Landmine project clearly did not align with the values of the Cambodian society at large. Of course, this clash of values was reciprocated at Traavik’s camp also, but therein lies the crux of the issue. The ethical conduct of the Cambodian authorities may, by Western standards, have been morally impermissible. Ultimately though, no matter how honourable his intentions, this was not for the Scandinavian artist to decide.

Word count: 1,550

References

Association for Women’s Rights in Development. “Miss Landmine Cambodia Pageant: Provocative Art or Pejorative ‘Project’?” http://www.awid.org/eng/Issues-and-Analysis/Library/Miss-Landmine-Cambodia-Pageant-Provocative-Art-or-Pejorative-Project (accessed September 28, 2010).

Huffington Post. “Cambodia Bans ‘Miss Landmine’ Beauty Pageant.” http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/03/cambodia-bans-miss landmi_n_249763.html (accessed September 14, 2010).

Kant, Immanuel, Lara Denis and Thomas Abbott. Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals. Canada: Broadview Editions, 2005.

MacKinnon, Ian. “Miss Landmine: exploitation or bold publicity for the victims?” The Guardian, April 22, 2008.

Mill, John Stuart. Utilitarianism. London: Parker, Son and Bourn, 1861.

Miss Landmine. “Cambodia 2009 – The Project.” http://miss-landmine.org/cambodia/index.php/manifesto.html (accessed September 28, 2010).

Rachels, James. The Elements of Moral Philosophy. 4^th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2003.

[1] Miss Landmine, “Cambodia 2009 – The Project,” http://miss-landmine.org/cambodia/index.php/manifesto.html (accessed September 28, 2010).

[2] James Rachels, The Elements of Moral Philosophy, 4^th ed. (New York: McGraw-Hill, 2003), 130.

[3] Rachels, The Elements of Moral Philosophy, 92-93.

[4] John Stuart Mill, Utilitarianism (London: Parker, Son and Bourn, 1861), 51.

[5] Miss Landmine, “Cambodia 2009 – The Project.”

[6] Association for Women’s Rights in Development, “Miss Landmine Cambodia Pageant: Provocative Art or Pejorative ‘Project’?” http://www.awid.org/eng/Issues-and-Analysis/Library/Miss-Landmine-Cambodia-Pageant-Provocative-Art-or-Pejorative-Project (accessed September 28, 2010).

[7] Huffington Post, “Cambodia Bans ‘Miss Landmine’ Beauty Pageant,” http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/03/cambodia-bans-miss-landmi_n_249763.html (accessed September 14, 2010).

[8] Miss Landmine, “Cambodia 2009 – The Project.”

[9] Ibid.

[10] Rachels, The Elements of Moral Philosophy, 122.

[11] Immanuel Kant, Lara Denis and Thomas Abbott, Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals (Canada: Broadview Editions, 2005), 88.

[12] Miss Landmine, “Cambodia 2009 – The Project.”

[13] Ibid.

[14] Ibid.

[15] Rachels, The Elements of Moral Philosophy, 16.