Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: FRIDAY, September 29, 1995 TAG: 9509290014
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: A-11 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE: J.D. STAHL
DATELINE: LENGTH: Medium
It seems ironic that anyone should care about banning books in a time when films show virtually anything anyone might want to see (and much that many people don't), and explicit material of all kinds is easily available on television and video, in magazines and on the Internet.
But in another sense, the question of censorship is even more acute now than ever. What restrictions, if any, ought to be placed on freedom of expression? Is censorship ever justified?
This question is important especially to parents and teachers who wrestle with the issue of what children should read or see. Should children be protected from some kinds of knowledge, from violence, sexuality or radical ideas?
The list of books that have been banned or contested because of their content is long and surprising. It includes "The Great Gilly Hopkins," Katherine Paterson's story of an obnoxious foster child, Kurt Vonnegut's sardonic anti-war story "Slaughterhouse Five," and Mark Twain's "Adventures of Huckleberry Finn."
As a scholar of Mark Twain's work, I have two observations about efforts to ban Huck Finn (which in practice usually means not placing it on a required reading list). One is that, as Samuel Clemens recognized, outright banning is excellent advertisement. Many middle-school pupils have eagerly read Judy Blume's "Forever" (not a particularly good book) because of its reputation for being risqu and forbidden.
The second is that there are serious reasons to think twice about teaching or assigning a book that, in the wrong context, can appear to legitimize racist language.
I think it is a book that needs to be taught thoughtfully, with attention to the issues of history and justice that the book raises, but also with full recognition that it is in some ways a dated work, and the creation of a white author with limitations specific to his time and culture. It needs to be taught - and read - in conjunction with other books such as Mildred Taylor's "Roll of Thunder, Hear My Cry" or, for more mature readers, Toni Morrison's "Beloved." "Huck Finn" is just part of the story.
A related issue to consider here is hidden censorship - the censorship of omission. Many points of view and sources of information are ignored in our society through the selective structures that mediate our knowledge. Reporting is frequently based on sensationalism rather than careful analysis, and the content of television programs is limited by the interests of the commercial sponsors.
World news is highly selective, and frequently confirms rather than questions the assumptions that guide news gathering. For instance, Africa tends to appear on television news only in cases of famine, war or natural disaster. These are some of the limits described by Noam Chomsky as "the limits of thinkable thought" in our society.
But the most basic question, it seems to me, is whether we approach education and the rearing of children with a fundamental attitude of trust in children and in the values we teach, or with fear - fear that children will be damaged, or that they will abuse their freedom.
That fear is not totally irrational, I believe, but I am convinced that children who are trusted to think for themselves, to make good choices, and to develop sound values, and who have models for doing so, will do these things even in the face of many opportunities to act destructively.
If there is an answer to pornography, it probably is not censorship but the experience of dependable love, and learning to respect men and women as whole human beings. If there is an answer to the gratuitous representation of violence, it is not denial of the existence of violence but understanding of the consequences of violent acts in real life.
Frequently, the desire to censor material is an attempt by adults to prevent children from encountering things that frighten or repel the adults. But if children are to learn how to choose what is valuable and reject what is not good, they need to encounter a range of materials, and that includes the possibility of making bad choices. Developing a sense of what you don't want to choose is an important part of the process of learning to make intelligent choices.
Suppressing films or books is ultimately an ineffective and self-defeating effort. Yes, books, films and works of art can be dangerous. Risk is one of the costs of freedom. But the dangers posed by works of the imagination and intellect are best met with reason, trust and education - not by seeking to suppress or destroy the works in question.
J.D. Stahl is an associate professor of English at Virginia Tech and the author of "Mark Twain, Culture and Gender."
by CNB