ARTroversy
ARTroversy
Episode 4 - Censorship
It's been a while, and there's nothing that gets me back into podcasting quite like a topic I am stupidly passionate about!
In this episode, I will be providing my wildly biased thoughts on censorship of media including books, visual arts, and movies. Art imitates life and life is not all rainbows and butterflies.
Hello everyone, and welcome to another [bleep] episode of ARTroversy, and I am your [bleep] host, Brianna Rae, also known as BrieIY.
[intro sequence]
[My dear friends, it has been quite a while since I’ve uploaded a podcast episode, but this topic is certainly one I have many, many thoughts about. That is, of course, censorship. Something you’ll learn about me throughout the exploration of this topic is that, particularly, I’m a little biased on this issue, so feel free to take my discussion with a grain of salt. Censorship is an issue I’m exceptionally passionate about, especially as an English teacher. I am flooded with decisions constantly on whether or not works should be considered appropriate for children, pulled from libraries, and so on. Arguably, it has become a significant part of my daily life, particularly in a time when it’s already hard enough to get my students excited about reading, and oftentimes being encouraged by parents to take some of the most powerful reads out of the hands of students for the reasons that they are powerful and force students to think critically and consider unique perspectives.
But before I dive too much into that, that’s start at the very beginning. What is censorship?
The Oxford dictionary defines censorship as “the suppression or prohibition of any parts of books, films, news, etc. that are considered obscene, politically unacceptable, or a threat to security.” In short, removing access to media. This can be through, per the definition, suppression in the form of perhaps hiding materials so they cannot be found as we saw in the case of The Fountain from our last episode of Artroversy; or prohibition as in a ban on the material from production or consumption.
Generally, the banning of various books can make relatively big news. Every year at the end of September, I personally celebrate banned books week by promoting a wide variety of books that have been banned for a variety of reasons. Some of these books include classics like Bridge to Terabithia for use of swear words and “witchcraft”. Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland for “use of drugs and alcohol”. Brave New World for offensive language, sexual content, and being “anti-family”, books such as Of Mice and Men and Huckleberry Finn for racism, and a personal favorite of mine, “Slaughterhouse 5” for violence. All of these, of course, among other reasons.
With children’s classics and novels revered as a part of the literary canon, many of which represent some of the most well-known novelists in American History being challenged so regularly, it’s now hard to see how many modern classics are also coming under scrutiny for similar issues.
Captain Underpants has been banned for “encouraging disruptive behavior” and one book in particular for featuring a same-sex couple. Also, “George” by Alex Gino for mentioning dirty magazines and creating “confusion” by including a transgender character. The Hate U Give by Angie Thomas was deemed “anti-cop”, Thirteen Reasons Why by Jay Asher was challenged for “addressing teen suicide”, “The Absolutely True Diary of a Part-Time Indian” by Sherman Alexie in part due to its religious viewpoint, and a graphic novel, “This One Summer” for sexual references and “certain illustrations”.
Now, I’ve read many of these books, so I have experienced many of these complaints through a first-hand lens. Books, much like movies, due have certain age ranges and levels associated with them to determine how appropriate they might be for a reader. Young-Adult novels in particular often feature topics leaning more heavily on coming-of-age experiences such as sex and discovery of one’s own identity. For many of us, as we grew up, these were relatable topics. And certainly, some of these books I don’t think I would have been ready for before a certain age, however, as an educator, I also know the importance of differentiation. I’m inclined to believe a parent when they voice that a text is too complex or addresses issues too mature for younger children. Generally speaking, I agree that parents probably know best. If parents don’t want to have their particular child consume certain content, so be it, however, the idea that content might be too mature for all children in an age group and should be removed from availability is ludicrous.
Beyond this, and the argument from those in favor of censorship that blows my mind is the idea that simply including controversial topics or visuals somehow means a novel or art would be “promoting it”. Let’s take the Outsiders, for example, this is a classic read for Middle School students, probably ages 12-15. In the novel, characters are mentioned as cigarette smokers. The logic from censorship supporters is that by seeing or reading about characters participating in these activities, then the people consuming this content will try to replicate the behaviors. I, personally, think this is a very narrow-minded approach to a complex issue. Media, especially in the present society, is ever-changing. People are consumed by so much media so regularly and oftentimes so quickly that the idea that a singular book, movie, or art piece could be the root of a change in behavior is kind of absurd. I think it also greatly undervalues the intelligence of our youth.
Perhaps this takes me back to a previous point, which is that parents often know best for their particular kids. If you have a real monkey-see, monkey-do kid and some turd in a kid's book is trying to steal a bag of chips from the local gas station, and now your kid is going to try that, okay, sure, maybe don’t plant the how-to manual in his lap, but I also think in these scenarios, parents and teachers rely on the understanding of right and wrong that we instill into our kids. Surely we don’t believe that one book demonstrating poor behavior is going to suddenly turn our children delinquent? I think that says more about the parenting than the book, honestly.
And yet, in another realm, maybe the censorshippers have a point. Maybe exposure and awareness of other topics can impact our kids, but it’s definitely not in the way they are imagining. The idea I’ve seen is that seeing same-sex couples and diverse gender identities is “turning kids gay”. When in reality, it’s more like kids could be realizing their gay. In households where students are only exposed to heteronormative stereotypes and situations, it’s entirely possible that some adolescents have never even considered the idea that the reason they aren’t interested in a boyfriend is because maybe they want a girlfriend instead. Exposure to these types of materials allows our young people to discover a part of themselves, recognize they are not strange, alone, or weird, and begin to process this information early and adjust to become well-rounded human beings who are comfortable with who they are because they know who they really are. This phenomenon is the very reason I wrote my novel, Fake it Till You Make It, which follows the story of a teen girl as she struggles to deal with concerns around her sexuality until she discovers she identifies as asexual. As I wrote the novel, I constantly thought of how different my teen years would have been if I’d had access to a book like mine, and so many members of the asexual community have noted since reading my novel how similar their experiences were too my main characters. Access to these materials helps struggling teens feel accepted and less alone when they’re learning so much about themselves. Adolescence is hard enough without being stripped of access to materials that might better help you understand yourself. That’s right, Karen, the book didn’t make your kid gay, they were gay the whole time! Surprise!
Many authors have taken a stand against censorship of their novels. One of my favorites is Chris Crutcher. My first year of student teaching, I was working through a contemporary literature unit with my 12th graders. In doing my research for the novel, “Whale Talk '' I came across a now 11-year-old petition to remove “Whale Talk” from a school curriculum. Naturally, my interest was peaked and I scrolled through the argument made by the woman, Debi, insisting that the book was offensive, profane, and racist. She also follows up in a comment on change.org stating that, and I quote, “ This is NOT censorship...I am simply asking that this book be removed from REQUIRED reading.”
Chris Crutcher himself chose to comment on the petition in a relatively succinct and powerful statement. He wrote, “you're wrong. This IS censorship. It's not banning, but it's censorship. Look it up. That said, I'm the first person in the world to say you have a right to your opinion, but your cherry-picking of language and situation as you represent this story in your article, is unforgivable; not from me because I'm used to this kind of thoughtless knee-jerk fear, but to the people to whom you're representing this book. The racial language, you forgot to mention, is ALL perpetrated by racists. You can't expose true hate without using the language of hate. What you don't recognize is kids' ability to discern what's good for them and what isn't. And I don't know a high school in America that won't give you a different book for YOUR child if you object to a story. When you decide that language is offensive in a story, you're taking TO KILL A MOCKINGBIRD, THE COLOR PURPLE, THE ABSOLUTELY TRUE DIARY OF A PART-TIME INDIAN, MONSTER, FALLEN ANGELS - to name just a few - out of required curriculum. When your Christian sensibilities get offended, you need to remember that the separation of church and state is FUNDAMENTAL to American democracy. I don't care if my book gets taken out of this particular high school curriculum, but your reasoning, and your representation of this particular story, is shameful.”
One of Crutcher’s points also reminded me of this incredible campaign entitled “Censorship tells the wrong story” put out by Reporters without Borders. The group selected images of famous politicians and blurred out portions of the image to some rather hilarious effects. For example, Vladimir Putin sitting in a chair with his hands on his lap. The creator pixelated his hands, leaving only a vaguely flesh-colored series of boxes which anyone with perhaps a dirtier mind may perceive to be Putin … playing with himself, let’s say. Obviously, this was not what the original picture portrayed, but by blurring out a piece of the image, suddenly there may be a less than savory idea of what occurred at a press conference, which then also leads to the spread of potentially dangerous misinformation. Crutcher stated the author's “cherry-picking of language” is what bothered him most about the petition, much like these images only show select portions which present the image in a very manicured way. The truth of the matter is, manipulating media only spreads misinformation, but like the presentation of the “offensive quotes,” the author of the petition pulled out of the book. How many parents read those quotes and immediately signed without paying attention to the context in which these quotes were presented? What if those parents actually would have found the book valuable? We’ll never know.
Something else I’ve found interesting in this topic is the sheer hypocrisy of those in favor of censorship. The same people who condemn blatant racism from racists in books like “Whale Talk'' seemed to shriek in defiance at the idea of Dr. Seuss books being discontinued for their portrayal of ethnic groups that are “hurtful and wrong.” Some were complaining about the “banning” of Dr. Seuss without understanding the true situation which was the express choice of Dr. Seuss Enterprises to discontinue production of ONLY 6 titles which poorly represent members of various communities, citing they do not want to perpetuate stereotypes of white supremacy with anti-race imagery. Banning versus discontinuing are two very different situations as one is a deliberate decision by the creator (or those acting on behalf of the creator) to avoid perpetuating harmful ideals. I do have a theory as to why some people tend to flip-flop on this issue, which I will dive into later.
Now, moving away from books, I’d like to discuss visual arts. Oftentimes we see situations censored for the specific actions or images which may cause distress, or probably most familiarly, nudity. I’d read up a lot on the idea of the creation, sale, and consumption of dangerous art, particularly violent or otherwise explicit actions or scenarios. Some people engage with this content as a form of trauma healing. It helps some process events that have occurred in their lifetime and cope with struggles that may not be frequently addressed in easily accessible media. It’s kind of like having a child draw pictures after a traumatic event when they struggle to speak or explain. Of course, even with this in mind, it’s also a very real situation that most people do not want to engage in this type of content.
This brings me to another sort of layer of complexity to the issue of censorship, this is, of course, triggers. We hear the phrase all the time that we have no idea what anyone else is going through. That’s so very true, which is why oftentimes creators of various media will provide prompt information before the materials warning others of potentially distressing content.
To speak for myself, I’m not a huge fan of gory content. While I love horror films, I don’t particularly enjoy slashers. Disemboweling is just not my thing, I guess. So, if I go into an art exhibition and I see, just, and disturbingly slasher-inspired sculpture, naturally, I should attempt to get it out of there or cover it to protect others from what I’ve just witnessed, right?
Of course not! That’s ridiculous, just as I wouldn’t run up to the projection room in a movie theatre and turn off the latest iteration of Nightmare on Elm Street. Just because I do not enjoy that content, does not mean it is within my right to withhold it from others. Museums are for the public, and everyone has different preferences.
I think the same goes for nudity. There is so much practicality in the use of nude models and form studies as a part of the artistic process, especially in terms of realism. Understanding of anatomy is a complex art in and of itself, taking time and practice to master. This is how new and un-referenced art can be created for consumption. When we have images and poses in our minds, it’s the understanding of this anatomy which allows us to create something totally new and previously unseen.
In a different way, it feels almost as though taking this element out of museums or hiding them away is sort of preventing a clear process of how style and talent are developed. So often we only see the finished, most grand pieces of art made at the hands of well-known painters and sculptors. But so many of these artists had to start somewhere. I often wonder how much more powerful museums would be for aspiring artists to see the greats unfinished or imperfect sketches or drafts, and track a journey through an exhibition to where they might go someday with so much dedication and practice. In that way, museums are sort of like social media – we only see the final, perfect, edited versions of the images.
Censorship has so many consequences which I’ve outlined here, but there is one more I want to bring up before closing this episode out. This is the “Streisand effect”. This is in relation to an event in which Barbara Streisand, a well-known celebrity, found a picture of her home had been taken and was accessible to the public. In an effort to get the image removed, so many people were curious about the image that she inadvertently brought a ridiculous amount of attention and tons of publicity to the image she so desperately wanted to keep private. Psychologically, people are way more likely to seek out information which they know is being kept from them. It’s just like that episode of Spongebob with Patrick’s secret box, or anytime someone’s mom told them to stay out her closest during the holidays. I KNOW my presents are in the mom, and now I know where they are, come on.
In fact, this almost makes me wonder if the reason so many pro-censorship people were suddenly condemning and publicizing the alleged “ban” on Dr. Seuss' book was to encourage people to read the books and take advantage of the Streisand effect to promote their personal ideals and values– of course, this is just a wild conspiracy I thought up. There's absolutely no proof to support it, but I wouldn’t be surprised if weaponized Streisand effects were a thing.
With all that said…is censorship ever okay? Oftentimes censorship is used to suppress hate speech. Perhaps we don’t want our children exposed to racist characters and dealing with the complex issues revolving around hatred directed at others for reasons that can’t be controlled. These issues can be difficult to explain to young children, and some parents may really want to protect their children from that type of ugliness for as long as they can, and honestly, I understand the urge. The truth is though, that art imitates life, and life is not all rainbows and butterflies. Life is hard and complicated, and sometimes it's difficult to be presented with that. Art and books are often escapes, and sometimes we don’t want to face the harsh realities of life as we indulge in some escapism. My overarching theory to explain the driving force behind censorship is nostalgia. For so many, childhoods were easy. Or at least easier, compared to living an adult life. The stresses of work and supporting dependents, and the unfortunate stigma of attending therapy which so many adults would benefit from forces so many people to seek out opportunities to exert control. Parents might want to keep their kids from feeling the way they feel as adults by shielding them from conversations that are uncomfortable or difficult. Or they simply attribute the political and social climate around them to the reason for their pleasant childhoods, which urges them to grasp at anything that reminds them of that time. While I don’t necessarily think this is the right move, it certainly explains the behavior. Important discussions are often uncomfortable, and so many of us simply exhibit avoidant behavior when we’re uncomfortable; it makes sense.
I don’t know if there is one right answer in the debate over censorship, but what I do know is that knowledge is powerful. Tools like trigger warnings, online reviews, and book teasers can help keep those who are uncomfortable with certain topics away from them without having to keep those topics or materials out of the hands of others. Maybe that is a form of censorship itself, to include spoilers or information before the consumption of material the way the author has meant for it to be consumed? Did the author even intend for it to be consumed? I don’t know.
And on the opposite end of the spectrum, consuming the materials that may be considered unfamiliar or uncomfortable to you may present you with the information you need to settle your discomfort and recognize the importance of these materials as a way to share perspective and develop our critical thinking skills, so we can determine what is good and bad for ourselves.
Whatever you may believe, I hope you enjoyed this episode of ARTroversy. I was very excited to get back on track writing this script, and I think I have another episode I’m working on right now which I have been looking forward to for quite a while. Feel free to subscribe if you like what you heard and feel free to reach out to me on Twitter or under the Youtube video, both are BrieIY, that B.R.I.E.I.Y. If you’re a fan of video content, I do put out new videos every Sunday at noon EST on Youtube.
Thanks a bunch, and I hope you have a killer week ahead. See ya!
References:
