What Books have been Banned?
Rather than discussing one book as usual, this time
participants were asked to introduce and share comments about a banned book
they had read.
There was quite a variety: “classics” such as Aldous Huxley’s
Brave New World (1932) and George Orwell’s Animal Farm (1945) as
well as more recent books such as And Tango Makes Three (by Justin
Richardson, 2005) and All Boys are Not Blue (by George M Johnson, 2020).
Actually, I introduced two books: The Grapes of Wrath
(1939), the classic novel by John Steinbeck (and the subject of my 5/10
blog post), and Me and Earl and the Dying Girl (by Jesse Andrews, 2012).
A May
5 article on Esquire.com is titled “The 10
Most-Banned Books in America.” Steinbeck’s 80+ years old book is not on the
list, but Me and Earl . . . is.
Given the current culture wars
raging in the U.S., it is not surprising that five of those ten books are
directly related to LGBTQ issues and three are about aspects of racism.
Why are Some Books Banned?
Books are banned in general because of controversial ideas
that are considered a danger to the general public—or a privileged segment of
society. The Grapes of Wrath, for example, was banned in some places
because of its implicit criticism of capitalism.
Other books are banned because of “moral” objections. My
impression from reading Me and Earl . . . was that it normalizes and
even glamorizes sexual promiscuity, excessive profanity, and the use of tobacco and
alcohol by high school students.*
But a major problem now is disagreement over what is moral.
Religious conservatives tend to consider all sexual activity by gays and
lesbians to be immoral and even their existence, as well as that of transgender
persons, to be an aberration that must not be afforded public acceptance.
And White supremacists, most of whom are perhaps only
latently such, find references to systematic racism highly objectionable, if
not immoral, and oppose students being taught or allowed to read books that
have anything to do with “critical race theory.”
Without question, it is “conservatives” of whatever stripe
who clamor most for the banning of books.
Should Any Book be Banned?
The prolific science fiction author Isaac Asimov (1920~92)
is often quoted as saying, “Any book worth banning is a book worth reading.”
I agree with Asimov regarding books with controversial ideas
being read by adults. But I couldn’t see any basis for thinking that Me and
Earl . . . was worth reading—except perhaps to understand the nature of one
of the most banned books in 2021 and the nature of some high schoolers now.
Perhaps some books just don’t belong in school libraries—any
more than cigarette and beer vending machines don’t belong in school cafeterias.
Teenagers are legally “banned” from purchasing tobacco and
alcohol. And they are “banned” from driving a car for most of their teen years.
(In Missouri and many other states, a person can’t be fully licensed to drive
until age 18.)
Thus, there are some generally accepted limitations on what
teenagers can and can’t do, for their protection and for the good of society.
Perhaps there are books that fit into the same category.
The problem, of course, is when books are banned because of prejudice
against certain people who are demeaned because of their race or because of
their sexual/gender orientation.
Given the absence of widespread agreement such as there is regarding
laws regulating purchase/use of tobacco/alcohol as well as the age at which teenagers
can legally drive, perhaps the best course of action is not to ban any books in
schools/libraries.
Parents are responsible for teaching their own children what
they think is good and appropriate, but they don’t have the right to regulate
what other parents see as suitable or permissible for their children.**
_____
* I usually have high regard for articles published
by The Guardian, but I was surprised (disappointed?) by a
2015 review of Me and Earl . . ., the last paragraph of which began,
“Everyone should read this book.”
** Helpful treatment of this thorny topic is found in “Banned
Books – Top 3 Pros and Cons,” updated in April 2022.
.jpg)
Generally I agree with your excellent blog today. (Are you sure we can't drive at 16 in Missouri? If not, that would be a change from my teen years.)
ReplyDeleteI find it particularly despicable for this society to try to ban books on LGBTQ, even for children. Years before the modern gay rights movement and the voiding of state laws against homosexual activity, I already knew people personally who were gay and continued to meet and associate with such persons. A number of them shared it with me, although generally they had to remain in the closet publicly.
It's unfortunate that the USAmerica has also over the decades banned books critical of capitalism or promoting socialism or communism. I wonder how much that has contributed to USAmericans' abysmal ignorance about economics and the impact of economic structures on everyday life. I had a South Korean friend in Austria back in the early 1990s who, while in college, was tortured and hung upside down for long periods because he had books by the sociologist C. Wright Mills on his bookshelf. Fortunately South Korea is much more open today than it was under its dictators. Of course, totalitarian communism was also terrible about banning books, as, I suppose, all authoritarians are. The Nazis' record regarding Jewish products might be the worst example of all.
I notice you didn't discuss pornography in this blog. Perhaps you have addressed that before.
Thanks for your comments, Anton.
DeleteIn spite of the effort to ban books in the U.S., there hasn't been much that I have seen about burning books, although an April 27 article in The Washington Post reported, "The Republican-led Tennessee state House passed a bill Wednesday that would require public school librarians to submit to the state a list of book titles for approval, as a GOP lawmaker suggested burning books that are deemed inappropriate."
That article goes on to say, "Book burning is emblematic of authoritarian regimes, and it was notably carried out in Nazi Germany. One of the most prominent examples in history occurred May 10, 1933, when students in German universities set fire to more than 25,000 books that were deemed 'un-German,' according to the U.S. Holocaust Museum. The action came after some 40,000 people gathered to hear Joseph Goebbels, chief propagandist for the Nazi Party, deliver an address declaring 'No to decadence and moral corruption,' according to the museum."
No, I didn't refer to (and haven't previously referred to) pornography, which perhaps I should have. I generally think of pornography as being something visual (something you would see in the movies or on TV), rather than something printed, although the dictionary definition includes both. But as raunchy as I found "Me and Earl . . .," I did not consider it pornographic.
I don't know when it changed, but now "Missouri's Graduated Driver License law requires that all first-time drivers between 15 and 18 years old complete a period of driving with a licensed driver (instruction permit), and restricted driving (intermediate license), before getting a full driver license." The latter is available only for those 18 and older.
In thinking more about not having said anything about banning books because of pornography, I began to wonder if perhaps a great societal problem that probably needs to be taken even more seriously than pornography is violence.
DeleteWhether banned or not, pornography is an issue of concern as it can, and no doubt often does, lead to the mistreatment of women. (Does pornography every lead some women to mistreat men?) But violence (including wars of aggression) is the mistreatment of people regardless of gender or age. If any books deserve to be banned, perhaps those which justify or even glorify violence ought to be at the top of the list.
I would agree that a great societal problem is violence and its endorsement and glorification. (I'm not convinced that pornography is a great societal problem except, as you note, where people are abused or taken of advantage of in ways of coercion or whatever.) The issue of violence in books makes me think of the violence in television and movies. I suspect we're all far more exposed to violence in those media than in books or magazines. My general stance has always been against censorship, banning books, etc. But I do wonder about the influence of excessive "justified" violence in the stories we tell through film. Generally the only films I avoid (except for horror, which I don't like) are those with excessive, graphic, and gratuitous violence.
DeleteHere are comments from Thinking Friend Eric Dollard in Chicago:
ReplyDelete"Thanks, Leroy, for your comments about book banning, a rightwing exercise but not a conservative one (as I define those terms).
"I have not read 'Me and Earl...," so I cannot comment on it, but I do not favor book banning. What galls me is the effort by some parents to ban books for everyone. If a parent does not want his or her child reading a particular book, then tell the school librarian, but the same parent does not have the right to tell another parent what his or her child can or cannot read. So a book as questionable as 'Me and Earl...' should remain in the library, but perhaps with a warning about its contents so that each parent can decide whether his or her child should be allowed to read it.
Back in the 1970's, I worked with a man whose wife was the librarian at a small city library in Kansas. Occasionally someone would come into the library to demand that a book, or several books, be removed from the library shelves. To her credit, she refused."
Thanks, Eric, and I would be interested in knowing the distinction you make between "rightwing" and "conservative." When I wrote in the article that it is “conservatives” of whatever stripe who clamor most for the banning of books, I was thinking primarily of conservatives being the ones who were most interested in conserving (preserving) traditional values.
DeleteI, too, thought about having some sort of rating system used for books as for movies. But the problem would be the difficulty, and cost, of setting up such a system--and the ratings tending to make many students more eager to read the questionable books, and most of them would not have parents present to advise them.
And this from Thinking Friend Glenn Hinson in Kentucky:
ReplyDelete"Banning books is an urgent issue because it points to something much more dangerous—a society becoming intolerant. That threatens democracy at its very heart, dismissing the wisdom of the framers of our constitution. Tolerance is the heart of democracy."
Thanks for your important emphasis on tolerance, Dr. Hinson, and I certainly agree with you on the importance of tolerance regarding conflicting ideas. But when things are seen as harmful to individuals or to society, then some sort of regulation/limitation seems to be called for. To use the examples in the blog article, since teenage use of tobacco and alcohol has been determined to be detrimental to them physically, laws have been enacted, and generally approved, by society. In the name of toleration schools don't put cigarette or beer vending machines in the school cafeterias.
DeleteThere are likely books that have content that is harmful to teenage minds and/or "morals." If so, shouldn't they be regulated like the examples just given? Perhaps so--but, and here's the basic problem, who is capable of deciding what is harmful to young minds in order to regulate/ban those books? So, along with tolerance perhaps there needs also to be an emphasis on freedom.
Thinking Friend Jerry Jumper of southwest Missouri shares these comments:
ReplyDelete"The primary issue for me, re. this issue, is who does the banning? When some groups feel they are losing the battle of convincing they pivot to a battle of coercion. The 'come, follow me' approach of Jesus is becoming the 'get your a.. in line' approach. I believe this later approach is akin to the Pharisees of Jesus's time and will ultimately backfire."
Here are comments received this evening from Thinking Friend Frank Shope in New Mexico:
ReplyDelete"The issue is a difficult one to make a black and white decision about. However, you did point out the role of the parents or guardian. I would suggest that the battle is over authority and beliefs that center on who is responsible for the child.
My battles with school and my children were always over whose responsibility it was to teach my children. I fully realize that children are often in a vacuum and parents are not engaged or knowledgeable about subjects. Thus, the government/educational systems try to step in and teach the children.
Additionally, I believe that even if a child grows up without certain knowledge, it is not the role of others who do not know the child to decide what is moral or age appropriate.
Perhaps I have seen too much manipulation of children in church life. Unless there is direct abuse or neglect parents reign supreme and books need to be reviewed by them.
Frank, I generally agree with your comments, which are in line with the conclusion of my blog article. But on the other hand--and there is always an other hand--what about those parents, especially in conservative churches, who do not want their children to learn certain things regularly treated in science books (such as evolution). And many parents in White conservative churches don't want their children to learn about the systematic mistreatment of Blacks--or of the legitimacy of people who are LGBTQ. So, when these parents "reign supreme," it is the children who suffer in the long run. So, for this reason also, in spite of the attendant problems, opposition to the banning of books in public schools/libraries is probably the better position.
DeleteAlthough banning books has its difficulties, since human beings are very diverse politically, socially and morally, etc.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I think that by not banning certain books hatred and violence can escalate, as it did in Nazi Germany in part because of the Nazi ideology literature available to citizens, which ultimately led to the Shoah. In other words, if society does not ban books, then I think we have to take more seriously the consequences of how books promoting violence and hatred against any individual or group can influence people to commit acts of hatred, violence, and genocide.
Thanks for your meaningful comments, Garth. They are in line with the second response I made to Anton above. For whatever reason, the problem of violence/hatred has not been the concern of book banners to the extent of other issues that are perhaps far less harmful.
DeleteLibrarians curate out many worthless and worse books every year. What is at stake in book banning drives is not enhancing the librarians' work, but rather in the crippling of it. Book bans aim against inconvenient truth. That is why classics so often are the targets. It is also why banners so often lie about what they are doing, and why. Look at Florida, where a war against "Critical Race Theory" is actually a war against teaching actual, relevant history. It is not white children who would be hurt by learning the truth. It is their politicians (and sometimes parents). Meanwhile many marginalized children grow up equally without an understanding of their own history and culture, especially as it involves the larger society.
ReplyDeleteThe division of education into primary, secondary and advanced studies goes back to the ancient world. Even then, primary was learning reading, writing, and arithmetic. Secondary was learning the general principles in the texts. Advanced studies examined hard cases in the texts. In our politicized world general principles are denigrated in favor of "the Three Rs." Even at church, often enough an advanced study is allowed to work out a hard saying, but perish the thought that general principles of religious scholarship should be taught. This pattern is repeated throughout society. The whole idea of a liberal arts educations is compared unfavorably with job training. There are a lot of rich and powerful people who do not want informed citizens, they want cogs for their machines. We, the people of this blog, are no doubt a huge disappointment to the powerful!
Thanks, as always, for your pertinent comments, Craig. As you say, currently much of the push to ban books is not for protecting children from things that are harmful to them but to protect the vested interests of politicians and the prejudiced ideas of a small segment in society.
Delete