The Empty Boot
Experience With Censorship
By Dr. William R. Taber, NYSALB Director
I think that during the near future, and perhaps for much longer, the public libraries of this country will face increasingly forceful attempts to make them adapt their library policies to the prejudices and agendas of outside groups. This is nothing new, but the present structural merging of the self-interests of political, corporate, ideological, and religious powers in this country make an increase of censorship attempts nearly inevitable, even if some fissures should develop within the present coalitions on various issues.
When I was in high school, and the time came to write the senior thesis, I was interested in the Revolutionary War; as our area and my ancestors were intensely involved in it. To me, the most complex mystery of the times was the curious and awful career of Benedict Arnold, who was an authentic hero of the Revolution, became a trusted and respected general officer, then betrayed his cause and his people, and was deservedly hated for it. I am sure that my ancestors willingly and personally would have executed him for it had they been given the opportunity. I saw Arnold as a series of psychological and sociological puzzles and contradictions that would be interesting to unravel and that would be revealing of and relevant to our history. His memorial, the empty boot, reflects some of the ambiguities that were felt even at the time.
I did not research nor write that thesis because my English teacher exploded with anxiety, passion, anger, and absolute refusal to permit me to research the ("terrible") topic. I was told not to read anything more about Arnold and to go to another topic. This was my first exposure to censorship; it set me back in surprise, and I obediently created and followed another topic (biographies of Simon Bolivar and Jose de San Martin) and won a prize for it.
It was not my last experience, however, with the censor. When I wrote my valedictory a number of months later, the same English teacher simply rejected it and handed me a prewritten speech that was more to her liking and which I was to give. This time, my response was different; for I had been inoculated. I told her that either I would deliver my own speech at the commencement or I would not speak at all except to explain very briefly why there would be no valedictory speech that year. She backed down, and I gave my own speech, which was nothing out of the ordinary for high school speeches, but which was at least authentic.
In later years, the various other attempts at censorship that I've observed or learned about seem to have some underlying similarities with this youthful experience.
The first similarity seems to be the ingredient of passion --- a highly energetic mode of apparent intent and language and movement that shows that a significant force is being directed right at a target. And if we are the targets, we must somehow counter or deflect the magnitude of that force if we are to resist it. This can be intimidating; for most people are not always ready to work themselves up to the level of energy that is necessary to match the passion of a true believer on a crusade who has walked through our door with his own agenda. That passion may be expressed in their spectacular behavior or in a tightly controlled rigidity that often seems ominous.
It also is a clue to the intensity of emotions that are very real to the censor. Most of us tend to defer to the intense emotions of others through our courtesy, our sympathy, our uncertainty or confusion as to "where they are coming from" intellectually, or from our anxiety about what they might do. The passion carries with it an implied threat (and sometimes an overt threat) that things must be done their way or hell will be paid its due. This points to another similarity.
The certainty of their belief in the minds of censors is outstanding. Their certainty is also intimidating to others, because you know almost instinctively that rational discussion in search of the truth of an issue or a solution to a problem is nearly impossible. When rational discussion is impossible, most of us feel that our own options have been radically reduced, and we know that our defenses have been weakened.
This combination of passion and the obsessive quality of their certainty is perhaps a clue to something that is less obvious. I paraphrase Shakespeare, "He (or thou) doth protest too much!" as he recognized that appearances sometimes are constructed to conceal quite different realities. Underlying the appearances of the censor, there seems to be an intense insecurity and fear. If their own house of cards is not accepted and supported by all others, then the consequences will be unendurable. All is in great danger; only rigid conformity to rules -their rules- can avoid a catastrophic disaster that looms.
And it may be true, literally true ... for them.
Studies of school bullies suggest some parallels. They note a general ineptitude of bullies in developing those cognitive and social skills (other than domination) with which most of us deal with the world and with people. They note the insecurities within bullies that are touched painfully by events, ideas, and circumstances that most of us deal with as a matter of course. The bully's self-image of superiority, however flawed it may appear to outsiders, is quite rewarding to them despite the punishments that their behavior may bring. To them, the punishments may actually confirm their superiority and further hide their more painful concerns. The superiority is also manifested in their disdain and distrust of others.
Since the core of the censor (like that of the bully) is essentially insecurity and fright, these characteristics are also their weaknesses. We know that, when adequately resisted or deflected, they can back down. The key to the problem from our point of view is not to be intimidated, never to hand them a victory, and if they should get one, never to stop resisting until it is reversed.
In truth, we have the advantage; for we actually have the higher moral ground that they so often claim for themselves. We recognize that widespread access to knowledge and freedom of thought combined with truly objective standards of truth are values that are not based upon the fears and anxieties and fictions of an anointed few. Our values are based rather upon the totality of human history and are the hope of the human future.
Somewhat like General Arnold: however overwhelming may be the censor's times in the sun in the near future, he will be defeated in the long term. Ideally, like Arnold's memorial, the censor's heritage someday will be just a note from the past and a warning to the future, another empty boot perhaps. I wouldn't bet on it, however. Attempts at censorship will probably be a permanent part of the human experience, but that is just another reason never to let them get the upper hand for any length of time.
Back To Contents NYSALB TRUSTEE Winter 2005