![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
vcmwThis is a very long philosophical rant partially in response to the recent articles about a book challenge in Tampa to Mildred Taylor's "The Land"
I've been thinking a lot lately about the kinds of discussions that just don't go well. I'm very prone to this kind of discussion because I have an unusual background and an unusual set of interests. Therefore my feelings on a lot of common issues do not match those of other people. I get in a lot of uncomfortable conversations because I don't realize quickly enough that someone asking me a question wasn't really asking a question - they assumed that I felt exactly as they did and were just reaching out for reassurance.
The issue as I see it is that our culture has a lot of what I'd call basic myths. These stories or beliefs about cultural institutions are the basis for many people's arguments. Often a vicious argument ensues when a cultural institution that has both a "basic myth" and a very different "record of fact" is brought into discussion, and one person argues from the point of view of the "ideal" or "basic myth" of the institution, while the other person argues from the "record of fact". Usually these myths involve the idea of safety. The myth version of an institution promises safety, and people react in a negative and violent manner to patterns of data that run counter to that myth of safety.
The "basic myth" of family is that a family is a unit that supports and loves each other, where the members of the family are safe, and where the members of the family look out for each others' best interests.
This ideal of the family is praiseworthy, but does not align with the experience of many people. The "record of fact" for many families involves physical, sexual or emotional abuse, passive-aggressive behavior, or other difficult situations. Talking about the experiences of those people becomes very difficult, because it makes other people, whose "record of fact" more closely aligns with the "basic myth" of the family, feel that you are attacking their family idea.
I experience this often at work, where for example a young person of 6-9 years old will come into the library unaccompanied, and a coworker or another adult will turn to me and say "doesn't that make you nervous/uncomfortable/upset at the parent, seeing that kid come in alone like that?"
Well, no it doesn't. I walked home from school alone in a small town from ages 7-10, and I often stopped in to the library to read and sit in the peaceful quiet. I understand intellectually that there are dangers in the library from pedophiles, older children, sharp objects, etc., but I don't have any automatic reaction that says small children should never be out unaccompanied. I am willing professionally to go along with the dominant opinion, but I don't share it. Home for me was a place with a lot of uncertainty - mostly pretty cool but occasionally full of violent outbursts, emotional tantrums, and random drug-using strangers sleeping on our floor. No library seems any more dangerous a place for young people to be alone than my home was, so my gut reaction is usually to think that the library is probably a safer place than the little kid's home. Whereas the gut reaction of someone from a safe home is to say "oh, that kid is going out into the world and putting themself in danger", my gut reaction is "oh, that kid is smart, getting out of a dangerous home and into a neutral space."
The "basic myth" of the United States of America is that we are the land of freedom and opportunity. "The home of the free and the brave"/"give us your tired, your hungry, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free" etc. The "record of fact" includes numerous instances of US political power being used to support the rich white men at the expense of poor people, women, and people of color. Discussing these instances of racist, sexist, classist behavior in US politics with someone who believes deeply in the "basic myth" makes them very angry and upset, because it challenges something that they love and take pride in. Because my parents were anti-establishment hippie types, I grew up very aware of political injustice in the United States. Coming to an adult appreciation of the things that the United States does well and generously has been a difficult journey for me. I have ALWAYS loved that basic myth - the idea of a place that welcomes the oppressed, that celebrates freedom, resonates deeply in me - but I don't have ablity to ignore the many concrete ways in which the United States does not always live up to that ideal, and I think that the best way to show my love for that ideal is to identify where we fall short and seek to improve in those areas.
The "basic myth" of the police [at least among the white middle class people I know] is that the police are a group in the community who exist to make sure that we are safe and to help us. The "record of fact" for many people, especially those who are not white, or not financially well off, can be very different.
My parents [being hippies, after all] were not always law-abiding. Also, we were poor. I was raised to fear the police. I was told that the government was not our friend, that government people would try to entrap and imprison you. My parents made a lot of jokes about pigs, about cops who busted people for drugs and then kept the drugs for their own recreational use, etc. I did not start to look at police without having my breath get nervous until I had been away from home for several years. As an adult, I have seen that both the viewpoint traditionally encouraged in children "your friend the policeman who will take care of you" and the viewpoint my parents encouraged in me "corrupt tool of the capitalist system" have merit. Historically, police have been used to attack civil rights marchers, to beat up union workers in peaceful strikes, and to attack student protesters of the Vietnam War. At least one group of police in Chicago was found guilty of having used electric wires and choking on black people in order to force confessions that were later found to be false - as recently as the 1990s I believe. (The articles about the result of the investigation were current news when I lived in Chicago in the 2000s.) On the other hand, the policemen I have met personally have always been very kind to me. They have helped me see how the library can be a safer place. They have helped me when my car was in a serious accident. But it is not possible to discuss the institution of the police rationally with most people, because discussion of situations where police have done negative things challenges their belief in an institution that makes them feel safe.
For many people, the "basic myth" of sexuality is that heterosexual, monogamous, lifelong [and non-kinky] relationships are the best goal for all individuals. For people who believe this about sexuality, information about non-monogamous, non-heterosexual, [or non-vanilla] sexual relationships challenges their worldview and makes them feel less safe. Scientific studies about homosexuality in animals or incidences of infidelity in marriage, personal anecdotes about non-monogamous relationships, childhood memoirs about early homosexual feelings - all of these make people who are deeply attached to the "basic myth" of heterosexual monogamous sexuality very uncomfortable. Personally, I'm currently in a heterosexual, monogamous, pretty vanilla relationship which I fully expect to be lifelong. But that doesn't mean that my life experience has been lived within that identity, and the idea of other relationship models doesn't make me feel unsafe in my relationship choice.
I think that the "basic myth" of censorship is that by keeping certain ideas out of public discussion, we can keep ourselves, but especially our children, safe from corrupting influences. I think that this basic myth depends deeply on both the basic myth of the family as a safe place, and the basic myth of the police or the government as a group that keeps you safe. For this reason, discussions of censorship are very charged.
Arguments are rarely made from the "record of fact" against censorship. Most responses to the "basic myth" of censorship draw on other cultural myths. For instance, the professionalism or neutrality of the selecting librarian - I consider this a basic myth of the library profession. It is an ideal that some librarians aspire to, but it is frequently breached in practice. We all know of librarians who refuse to purchase graphic novels or romance novels or erotica or left/right leaning political materials because "those books are just not good quality". The truth is that librarians and librarianship are not neutral in practice. Our "record of fact", from historically racist and classist cataloging terms such as those challenged by Sanford Berman, to racist policies about who can use libraries (up to at least the 1960s many libraries banned black people) to sexist policies about who can use libraries (up to the 1900s many libraries banned women), to classist policies in libraries (many libraries to the present day have policies that effectively ban the homeless or indigent) shows that our institutions are not neutral - we do not serve everyone equally, on equal terms. But that "basic myth" of equal neutral access is one that many librarians and libraries do aspire to, and it is used frequently in response to issues of censorship.
Note that most challenges are about children's books. Or books related to issues of sexuality. These are the two areas in which our culture has the most current contention about its basic myths.
What bothers me is that I never hear censorship arguments where the response to a call for censorship is based on the record of fact. I understand the problem intellectually: the would-be censor would be made angry by reminders of the record of fact. That's why anti-censorship advocates create their own "basic myths": "free speech" "neutrality", etc.
There's an element of kind social consideration to responding to one set of myths with another set of myths. But just once, I'd like to hear someone stand up and respond to the myths with the record of fact and then actually BE HEARD. I know this won't happen, I understand the psychological reasons why this is a foolish desire on my part, but I still wish it.
I'd like information about racial and economic disparities in the treatment of people to be clearly and directly treated in books of all kinds for the very young, so that they have a more realistic groundwork. I think that a lot of depression in adolescence comes from having had a certain worldview as a protected child and having that worldview drastically shattered as we approach adulthood. I don't think that the role of caring parents is to shelter children from this reality - the most caring thing that a parent can do is to help children come to terms with a world that is often unfair without falling victim to rage or despair. We do this by helping children to develop a sense of agency in their lives, to understand that their actions and words have an important effect on their community and their future. We do not protect children when we try to keep them unaware of negative things. We also don't protect children when we overexpose them to depressing information - I'd hate to see some kid who had to read like, a book about slavery a week or something. Poor kid would have nightmares all their life. But how can you understand the world and the people you live with if you don't understand the forces and history that shape them? Childhood is the time of life when we are trying to build our picture of the world. A great deal of energy is put into making sure that children are raised believing the basic myths of our society, and protecting them from the parts of the record of fact that run counter to those myths.
Personally, I think this is a shame. Personally, I think that belief in the myth makes it harder to act to change the reality for the better. It is harder to try and work to improve our police force's ways of dealing with people who aren't white and well-off if we believe the "basic myth" about the police, because it creates emotional and cognitive dissonance in someone who believes this myth to acknowledge that it does not always hold true. It is harder to protect members of families from abuse within the family (whether of spouse by spouse (male to female or female to male or female to female or male to male) or abuse of child by parent, or abuse of elderly parent by child - all of which documentedly exist in the record of fact) if you believe deeply in the "basic myth" of the family as a safe space. It is harder to talk honestly about how our libraries choose and keep books if you believe in any of the basic myths that interplay there - those that surround issues of censorship, free speech, and neutrality.
I've been thinking a lot lately about the kinds of discussions that just don't go well. I'm very prone to this kind of discussion because I have an unusual background and an unusual set of interests. Therefore my feelings on a lot of common issues do not match those of other people. I get in a lot of uncomfortable conversations because I don't realize quickly enough that someone asking me a question wasn't really asking a question - they assumed that I felt exactly as they did and were just reaching out for reassurance.
The issue as I see it is that our culture has a lot of what I'd call basic myths. These stories or beliefs about cultural institutions are the basis for many people's arguments. Often a vicious argument ensues when a cultural institution that has both a "basic myth" and a very different "record of fact" is brought into discussion, and one person argues from the point of view of the "ideal" or "basic myth" of the institution, while the other person argues from the "record of fact". Usually these myths involve the idea of safety. The myth version of an institution promises safety, and people react in a negative and violent manner to patterns of data that run counter to that myth of safety.
The "basic myth" of family is that a family is a unit that supports and loves each other, where the members of the family are safe, and where the members of the family look out for each others' best interests.
This ideal of the family is praiseworthy, but does not align with the experience of many people. The "record of fact" for many families involves physical, sexual or emotional abuse, passive-aggressive behavior, or other difficult situations. Talking about the experiences of those people becomes very difficult, because it makes other people, whose "record of fact" more closely aligns with the "basic myth" of the family, feel that you are attacking their family idea.
I experience this often at work, where for example a young person of 6-9 years old will come into the library unaccompanied, and a coworker or another adult will turn to me and say "doesn't that make you nervous/uncomfortable/upset at the parent, seeing that kid come in alone like that?"
Well, no it doesn't. I walked home from school alone in a small town from ages 7-10, and I often stopped in to the library to read and sit in the peaceful quiet. I understand intellectually that there are dangers in the library from pedophiles, older children, sharp objects, etc., but I don't have any automatic reaction that says small children should never be out unaccompanied. I am willing professionally to go along with the dominant opinion, but I don't share it. Home for me was a place with a lot of uncertainty - mostly pretty cool but occasionally full of violent outbursts, emotional tantrums, and random drug-using strangers sleeping on our floor. No library seems any more dangerous a place for young people to be alone than my home was, so my gut reaction is usually to think that the library is probably a safer place than the little kid's home. Whereas the gut reaction of someone from a safe home is to say "oh, that kid is going out into the world and putting themself in danger", my gut reaction is "oh, that kid is smart, getting out of a dangerous home and into a neutral space."
The "basic myth" of the United States of America is that we are the land of freedom and opportunity. "The home of the free and the brave"/"give us your tired, your hungry, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free" etc. The "record of fact" includes numerous instances of US political power being used to support the rich white men at the expense of poor people, women, and people of color. Discussing these instances of racist, sexist, classist behavior in US politics with someone who believes deeply in the "basic myth" makes them very angry and upset, because it challenges something that they love and take pride in. Because my parents were anti-establishment hippie types, I grew up very aware of political injustice in the United States. Coming to an adult appreciation of the things that the United States does well and generously has been a difficult journey for me. I have ALWAYS loved that basic myth - the idea of a place that welcomes the oppressed, that celebrates freedom, resonates deeply in me - but I don't have ablity to ignore the many concrete ways in which the United States does not always live up to that ideal, and I think that the best way to show my love for that ideal is to identify where we fall short and seek to improve in those areas.
The "basic myth" of the police [at least among the white middle class people I know] is that the police are a group in the community who exist to make sure that we are safe and to help us. The "record of fact" for many people, especially those who are not white, or not financially well off, can be very different.
My parents [being hippies, after all] were not always law-abiding. Also, we were poor. I was raised to fear the police. I was told that the government was not our friend, that government people would try to entrap and imprison you. My parents made a lot of jokes about pigs, about cops who busted people for drugs and then kept the drugs for their own recreational use, etc. I did not start to look at police without having my breath get nervous until I had been away from home for several years. As an adult, I have seen that both the viewpoint traditionally encouraged in children "your friend the policeman who will take care of you" and the viewpoint my parents encouraged in me "corrupt tool of the capitalist system" have merit. Historically, police have been used to attack civil rights marchers, to beat up union workers in peaceful strikes, and to attack student protesters of the Vietnam War. At least one group of police in Chicago was found guilty of having used electric wires and choking on black people in order to force confessions that were later found to be false - as recently as the 1990s I believe. (The articles about the result of the investigation were current news when I lived in Chicago in the 2000s.) On the other hand, the policemen I have met personally have always been very kind to me. They have helped me see how the library can be a safer place. They have helped me when my car was in a serious accident. But it is not possible to discuss the institution of the police rationally with most people, because discussion of situations where police have done negative things challenges their belief in an institution that makes them feel safe.
For many people, the "basic myth" of sexuality is that heterosexual, monogamous, lifelong [and non-kinky] relationships are the best goal for all individuals. For people who believe this about sexuality, information about non-monogamous, non-heterosexual, [or non-vanilla] sexual relationships challenges their worldview and makes them feel less safe. Scientific studies about homosexuality in animals or incidences of infidelity in marriage, personal anecdotes about non-monogamous relationships, childhood memoirs about early homosexual feelings - all of these make people who are deeply attached to the "basic myth" of heterosexual monogamous sexuality very uncomfortable. Personally, I'm currently in a heterosexual, monogamous, pretty vanilla relationship which I fully expect to be lifelong. But that doesn't mean that my life experience has been lived within that identity, and the idea of other relationship models doesn't make me feel unsafe in my relationship choice.
I think that the "basic myth" of censorship is that by keeping certain ideas out of public discussion, we can keep ourselves, but especially our children, safe from corrupting influences. I think that this basic myth depends deeply on both the basic myth of the family as a safe place, and the basic myth of the police or the government as a group that keeps you safe. For this reason, discussions of censorship are very charged.
Arguments are rarely made from the "record of fact" against censorship. Most responses to the "basic myth" of censorship draw on other cultural myths. For instance, the professionalism or neutrality of the selecting librarian - I consider this a basic myth of the library profession. It is an ideal that some librarians aspire to, but it is frequently breached in practice. We all know of librarians who refuse to purchase graphic novels or romance novels or erotica or left/right leaning political materials because "those books are just not good quality". The truth is that librarians and librarianship are not neutral in practice. Our "record of fact", from historically racist and classist cataloging terms such as those challenged by Sanford Berman, to racist policies about who can use libraries (up to at least the 1960s many libraries banned black people) to sexist policies about who can use libraries (up to the 1900s many libraries banned women), to classist policies in libraries (many libraries to the present day have policies that effectively ban the homeless or indigent) shows that our institutions are not neutral - we do not serve everyone equally, on equal terms. But that "basic myth" of equal neutral access is one that many librarians and libraries do aspire to, and it is used frequently in response to issues of censorship.
Note that most challenges are about children's books. Or books related to issues of sexuality. These are the two areas in which our culture has the most current contention about its basic myths.
What bothers me is that I never hear censorship arguments where the response to a call for censorship is based on the record of fact. I understand the problem intellectually: the would-be censor would be made angry by reminders of the record of fact. That's why anti-censorship advocates create their own "basic myths": "free speech" "neutrality", etc.
There's an element of kind social consideration to responding to one set of myths with another set of myths. But just once, I'd like to hear someone stand up and respond to the myths with the record of fact and then actually BE HEARD. I know this won't happen, I understand the psychological reasons why this is a foolish desire on my part, but I still wish it.
I'd like information about racial and economic disparities in the treatment of people to be clearly and directly treated in books of all kinds for the very young, so that they have a more realistic groundwork. I think that a lot of depression in adolescence comes from having had a certain worldview as a protected child and having that worldview drastically shattered as we approach adulthood. I don't think that the role of caring parents is to shelter children from this reality - the most caring thing that a parent can do is to help children come to terms with a world that is often unfair without falling victim to rage or despair. We do this by helping children to develop a sense of agency in their lives, to understand that their actions and words have an important effect on their community and their future. We do not protect children when we try to keep them unaware of negative things. We also don't protect children when we overexpose them to depressing information - I'd hate to see some kid who had to read like, a book about slavery a week or something. Poor kid would have nightmares all their life. But how can you understand the world and the people you live with if you don't understand the forces and history that shape them? Childhood is the time of life when we are trying to build our picture of the world. A great deal of energy is put into making sure that children are raised believing the basic myths of our society, and protecting them from the parts of the record of fact that run counter to those myths.
Personally, I think this is a shame. Personally, I think that belief in the myth makes it harder to act to change the reality for the better. It is harder to try and work to improve our police force's ways of dealing with people who aren't white and well-off if we believe the "basic myth" about the police, because it creates emotional and cognitive dissonance in someone who believes this myth to acknowledge that it does not always hold true. It is harder to protect members of families from abuse within the family (whether of spouse by spouse (male to female or female to male or female to female or male to male) or abuse of child by parent, or abuse of elderly parent by child - all of which documentedly exist in the record of fact) if you believe deeply in the "basic myth" of the family as a safe space. It is harder to talk honestly about how our libraries choose and keep books if you believe in any of the basic myths that interplay there - those that surround issues of censorship, free speech, and neutrality.
