column: EUOLogy: On Pullman and Censorship

[Skar]

Sigyn, you're not someone I picture when I think of heads in the sand, at all.  Yet, I said it.  My apologies,  I didn't mean you. 

There are people who take the time to understand an idea, give it honest thought, and then choose not to espouse it or bother entertaining it anymore.  Then there are people who hear the word "Atheism" and stick their fingers in their ears lest they understand the concept and burn out their brains.  They're the ones I was thinking of as having their heads in the sand.

I imagine they are also the ones who will be picketing the movie theaters on the strength of a mass email.

[Fellfrosch]

I was not suggesting that failing to stock a book in your bookstore because you don't have room, or because you don't like the genre, or because you think other books will sell better, is censorship. I'm suggesting that failing to stock it because you object to its ideology and don't want anyone to read it is censorship.

Also, I'm totally not getting the "free will" argument: you're saying that it's okay for a bookstore to make material unavailable because they're doing it of their own free will, and that means its not censorship? So when a government makes the same decision, they're somehow not doing it of their own free will? I could understand if you were talking about the audience's free will, because taking away an audience's free will is one of the key points of censorship, but to point to the distributor's free will as a counter-argument against censorship makes no sense to me at all. If I ran around burning copies of Huckleberry Finn I'd be doing so of my own free will, but that doesn't make my actions any more defensible. It makes them less defensible, if anything.

[42]

Distributors do it all the time Fell. Editors reject books because they don't like the ideas in them. Distributors are not required to obey the whims of the masses. Distributors are not required to give the best possible service to their customers. They often do because there are consequences involved in not doing so, but they don't have to. They have agency and I don't feel that the government or whiny authors should step in to decide for them what they will and will not distribute.

If authors find that to be censorship, well tough. What they really need to do is get a better reason why people should listen to their ideas.

[Skar]

I was not suggesting that failing to stock a book in your bookstore because you don't have room, or because you don't like the genre, or because you think other books will sell better, is censorship. I'm suggesting that failing to stock it because you object to its ideology and don't want anyone to read it is censorship.

You make an important distinction.  However, making censorship hinge on what's going on in the guilty party's head (which is inherently unknowable for the rest of us) rather than their actual impact on the availability of the book allows every crappy writer to scream censorship when his book is rejected by the publishers.  Or the man with no money outside the movie theater to scream censorship over the theatre's unwillingness to give him a ticket.  Less than useful.

Also, I'm totally not getting the "free will" argument: you're saying that it's okay for a bookstore to make material unavailable because they're doing it of their own free will, and that means its not censorship? So when a government makes the same decision, they're somehow not doing it of their own free will? I could understand if you were talking about the audience's free will, because taking away an audience's free will is one of the key points of censorship, but to point to the distributor's free will as a counter-argument against censorship makes no sense to me at all. If I ran around burning copies of Huckleberry Finn I'd be doing so of my own free will, but that doesn't make my actions any more defensible. It makes them less defensible, if anything.

The free will argument comes down to this:

Larry Miller choosing not to show Brokeback Mountain is not impinging on anyone's free will.  He is only exercising his own. He may have made it harder to see the movie since he happens to run quite a few movie theaters, but if anyone chose to make their own arrangements to see the film, exercising their free will on the matter, he'd have nothing to say and nothing he could do about it.

The government ruling that no one may see the movie is impinging on the citizen's free will.  Should the citizen make their own arrangements they would be penalized, which brings us back to the threat of violence.  The same applies to the censor who destroys every copy of a book.  They have physically prevented others from reading it.  This is censorship.

[Fellfrosch]

I don't feel that the government or whiny authors should step in to decide for them what they will and will not distribute.

Agreed, but that has no bearing on the definition of censorship, only on the response to censorship, which thus far I have carefully avoided discussing.

...making censorship hinge on what's going on in the guilty party's head (which is inherently unknowable for the rest of us) rather than their actual impact on the availability of the book allows every crappy writer to scream censorship when his book is rejected by the publishers.

Yes it does, and it should. I would rather live in a world where crappy writers can rant about censorship than a world where good writers are oppressed by it. Not that you're suggesting anything different, and I know you're not; I'm just saying.

Or the man with no money outside the movie theater to scream censorship over the theatre's unwillingness to give him a ticket.

I did not mean to suggest that capitalism is a form of censorship, though it's an intriguing argument.

Larry Miller choosing not to show Brokeback Mountain is not impinging on anyone's free will.  He is only exercising his own. He may have made it harder to see the movie since he happens to run quite a few movie theaters, but if anyone chose to make their own arrangements to see the film, exercising their free will on the matter, he'd have nothing to say and nothing he could do about it.

That doesn't mean it's not censorship, it just means it's not effective censorship. I can go through my children's bookshelf and black out all the words I don't like, and that would be censorship; the fact that they can just read a non-censored book somewhere else does not change the fact that I have censored a book.

In the end, Skar, I think this comes down to a disagreement in terms and scale. I happen to believe that censorship happens constantly, in many forms, some of them more acceptable than others. You apparently believe that censorship exists only in a pure Orwellian sense--an all-or-nothing kind of censorship that is either totalitarian or not really censorship at all. That's fine, as long as we acknowledge that we're talking about two different definitions of the same thing. I will say this, however: my kind of censorship scares me a hell of a lot more than yours does, because it creeps up on us by degrees and we are, in large part, complicit in our own oppression. By the time we've reached your definition of censorship it's pretty much too late, because we already live in a totalitarian state. By definition of censorship is happening right now, and will eventually lead to that worst-case scenario, which is why it's important to recognize it for what it is and do something about it.

That makes me sound a lot more like a reactionary lunatic that I wanted it to, but there you go. Fight the power.

[42]

But censorship is not a bad thing.

It's really neither good or bad. It's just the judgements of those impacted by it that decide if it is good or bad on an individual bases. Giving it a blanket application of being bad for all people or good for all people is what's dangerous.

IMO, on an individual basis people should have the right to censor. Even on a larger scale, groups of people shoud have the right to censor. Ideas are always warring with each other. Ideas are not harmless little things. Ideas are what drive policy and policy impacts people greatly. Some ideas have to be censored so that other ideas can flourish.

Censorship should follow a heirarchy: Individuals can censor a lot, groups a little less, then communities a little less than that, States and the Federal government can censor very little.

[Skar]

Fell-

Yeah, we've got different definitions of censorship.  I only want to call enforced censorship "censorship" and you'd like to call any instance of one person making it harder for another person to view a work "censorship" on a sliding scale, with enforced censorship on one end and a literary snob tending not to order SF books for her library on the other. I'm not saying your definition is invalid, just trying to define it for the sake of the discussion. (If I'm wrong, let me know.)

I do, however, have a problem with lumping my brand of enforced "censorship" in with all the other un-enforced instances you want to include in the term.  The enforcement, in my mind, is an important line, since that's when one person starts imposing their will on another.

The problem is that in order to stop  censorship, (which, I think we can agree, is usually the goal) one entity must impose its will on another, just like enforcing censorship.   It could take many forms, perhaps  insisting that Larry Miller show Brokeback Mountain in his theaters his wishes be damned, or a government decree that all people must read a certain book.

Stopping censorship on any level of your sliding scale involves imposing our will on other people, which is exactly the same thing we object to with censorship.  What makes one instance of forcing your will on another better than the other?

I'm only OK with imposing my will on others when they're trying to do the same to me.  And only then for long enough to make them stop.

What scares me is the idea that people should be allowed to decree what Larry Miller must show in his theaters in the name of resisting censorship.  That kind of thing also creeps up on you, and in today's social and political climate it's far more likely than old school censorship.

42-

I agree with you.  Not all censorship is a bad.  The word itself carries a lot of emotional baggage which colors it evil but making it illegal for children to be shown porn is nothing if not censorship and nothing if not good.

[Fellfrosch]

Censorship should follow a heirarchy: Individuals can censor a lot, groups a little less, then communities a little less than that, States and the Federal government can censor very little.

I can agree with that wholeheartedly.

And Skar: I seem to remember having a very similar discussion last summer about the definition of terrorism: my definition was much more inclusive than yours, and your definition was much more brutal. Interesting.

[Peter Ahlstrom]

We use four or so different printing companies to print our books. Some of them sometimes refuse to print some of our books if they don't like the content, and we have to go to one of the other companies. (Just another example for y'all.)

[The Holy Saint, Grand High Poobah, Master of Monkeys, Ehlers]

I dont' think there's any real disagreement here, and I think the discussion would be much more worthwhile if we agreed to them by different terms. I think, that while "censorship" is a loaded term, it serves us better to be more inclusive. Ie, if I tell you to shut up, I'm attempting to censor you. Now, if you're talking about killing all the blacks and trying to teach my children this is the right thing to do, that's not a bad sort of censorship.
If, however, I'm a police agent and you're merely stating your opinion on something on the sidewalk, suddenly we have enforced censorship, of an inappropriate sort.

I think I would, for ease of use, call what skar is discussing "enforced censorship" and what Fell is talking about "censorship." And acknowledge that unless there is a driving imperative for public safety, that enforced censorship is bad, while standard censorship can be either.

[Skar]

Nicely stated, SE.

Since pulling the Pullman books off library shelves would cross into enforced censorhip, I guess the question would now be: 

Does exposing children to a series of books that espouses atheistic ideas constitute a threat to public safety?

I can see an argument to be made for both sides of that one. 

• If we posit that God will punish us as a nation if we become unrighteous and that kids may choose atheism because of these books, then I think the wrath of God would constitute a threat to public safety.  (Locust storms, earthquakes, etc...)
• Or, if we posit that atheism is inherently wrong, then surely Pullman's ideas will be defeated in children's minds by those ideas we, their parents, expose them to which contradict Atheism.

Of course, we're talking public libraries and schools so we have to look at just how close we are to having books with religious ideas we do agree with censored away in the name of separation of church and state.  Surely censoring away Pullman's books would open the door to censoring away religious books as well.

[stacer]

One of the commenters on my blog thread on this topic put the books in a perspective that I find I prefer to look at them: This is a fantasy world of parallel worlds. What if, in this world, Lucifer won the War in Heaven and became the "Authority," the being in this world that set itself up as God? (Note that the overall message of this trilogy is that agency is essential, and I think that is a principle few would disagree with.) Then overthrowing this "Authority" would be essential for life to be worth living. To quote the commenter, "If, on the other hand, [my kids] think that the God Pullman describes is the God they learn about at church, then I need to do a much better job at teaching them who God is."

There are ways of looking at Pullman's work that doesn't include deciding that it's the worst kind of literature ever and that no kid should be exposed to it. And then perhaps enforced censorship could be pulled out of the discussion.

[Skar]

Oh, I entirely agree.  Pullman's "God" is, essentially, a straw man.  I never felt that his books should be yanked from the libraries.  But, apparently, the author of the email Brandon got does.     

Let's make some signs and go picket the picketers!  Who's with me?

[Spriggan]

EUOL made it into the local newspaper with his article.

http://www.sltrib.com/ci_7591548?source=rss

[Sigyn]

Eek! The Trib! Not the Trib!