Scarry defines torture to be in two parts: the inflicting of pain and the interrogation. For most of the torture, Scarry's definition applies. However, there are exceptions. As one might seen in Hostel, many victims have been "torture" just for the pleasure of the rich without any form of interrogation involved. Obviously, it is a movie and many things might be made up. However, it is hard to eradicate the possibility of such action. In that case, is it not torture that those victims have undergo? Scarry seems not to believe in torture as entertainment.
Scarry's writing can pretty much link to Abu Ghraib. As the war against terrorists was fought in Iraq, US soldiers often capture Iraqi for interrogation purpose. Terrorists are not official army. They are made up by civilians with their own ideology. Thus, anyone in Iraq seems to US soldiers a potential enemy - men, women, and even kids. In such cases, information serve an important role. Frustrated by the little amount of information obtain by their prisoners, US army started to use torture (inflicting pain and questioning) as a method to obtain information. In addition, as Scarry quoted, "If they are not guilty, beat them until they are," "If you are not a Vietcong, we will beat you until you admit you are; and if you admit you are, we will beat you until you no longer dare to be one," (41-42) the answers in torture are already determined by the torturer. If unable to obtain desired answers, torture will only last on. In the case of Abu Ghraib, it is clear the the prisoners know nothing of the situation and the questioning becomes merely a reason for torture. It is a method for entertainment as the US soldiers stressed out in the long and unpredictable war against unconventional enemies and IEDs. Torture, in many cases, turn out only to be a way to crush the soul of the victim and a display of power.
Wei-Wen, this is a thought-provoking and unorthodox interpretation of the text. I do not think that Scarry meant to disregard torture as entertainment, though; on the contrary, I think that she is rather finding the truth underneath all varying motives for torture, to link and to simplify them. By this, I mean that even someone torturing another for pleasure, someone of obvious moral compromise, is rationalizing their motives for such a destructive act. Their pleasure in inflicting pain is an agent for stabilizing their own unsteady regime, the regime in this case being a twisted psyche. The questions and the answers, as Scarry calls them, are interchangeable: torture for entertainment is still of the same structure as that of interrogative torture. There is a question, which need not even be asked verbally - the search for pain in another person's eyes; and there is an answer, which need not be spoken, for it is the physical response to pain that fulfills the needs of the torturer.
ReplyDeleteIn the case of Abu Ghraib, as you have well pointed out, where there is no knowledge of a verbal question to be asked, torture still exists. The soldiers were following the orders of their superiors, and were not only stressed, but also surrounded by torture and convinced that this was the only truth to be had - and not the truth of human compassion and mercy. By seeing all prisoners as the enemy, and thus excusing themselves of the burden of mercy, they were able to fortify their own shaky beliefs and existence by inflicting severe pain on 'evil' adversaries. Torture can in this case be called the work of idle hands, or even still, the work of those searching for an answer to their own life questions.