In the 1980’s, the PMRC (Parents Music Resource Council), led by prominent Washington women, such as Tipper Gore and Susan Baker, sought to require labels on record albums to protect young people from what they considered violent, sexual, or profane content. The PMRC was successful, however their parental advisories meant that many albums were given much more attention than they might have otherwise received. This effect has happened again and again. Whenever something has a warning label, many people, especially young people, try to find out why. For music, movies, books, and websites – bans and warnings are free advertising.
Recently a group calling themselves, “Moms for Liberty,” has invoked “freedom” as their reason to ban books.
My wife and I did not restrict our children’s reading, listening, or viewing. We presented only age-appropriate materials at home and as they grew older, we tried to keep tabs on them as well as assure them they were free to talk with us about anything they read, heard, or saw. To us, “freedom” means parents and children are free to explore the world as they wish, without bans. It’s puzzling that a group would equate restrictions with liberty.
It occurs to me that some people believe they know all the answers while others feel compelled to ask questions. I am among the latter, because the world is complex and because I want to at least know what I don’t know. Mark Twain reportedly said, “It ain’t so much the things that people don’t know that makes trouble in this world, as it is the things that people know that ain’t so.” Further, life generally doesn’t conform to A-B or A-B-C-D answers. While simple, straightforward answers might be comforting, there is always more to learn, and finding the truth often takes more effort than we originally thought. Oscar Wilde wrote, “The truth is never pure and rarely simple.”
I tried to teach my students to question things. If freedom is to be useful, it seems to me we ought to use it to inquire about what is important to us, not to pretend that what we already know is sufficient. Clearly it isn’t enough, or the world might be a much better place.
My course syllabi included the following quote. The authors argued that learning demands that we wrestle with information and ideas, even though the process is often tedious, uncomfortable, or messy.
“Once you have learned to ask questions – relevant and appropriate and substantial questions – you have learned how to learn, and no one can keep you from learning whatever you want or need to know.” – Neil Postman and Charles Weingartner in Teaching as a Subversive Activity (New York: Delacorte, 1969), p. 23.
If we exercise this kind of liberty, there is no limit to what we might learn. And sometimes banned books are part of the process.
Every “new” book I read must compete for space on the shelves of my mind. I was taught to compare what I had previously learned with what each new author had to say. Do his or her ideas reinforce or challenge what I thought I knew? Do the new thoughts broaden or focus the thoughts already on my shelves? Do the new concepts push some of the old ones to the back of my library? Are the points the author makes backed by solid evidence and clear reasoning or are they merely conjecture? Which of my older volumes still hold true? No book should be accepted at face value. No idea should be believed without questioning.
Of course, a book might be too much for a young mind. Some ideas require experience, context, explanation, or just plain maturity. I’m certainly not arguing that we shouldn’t exercise good judgment with young readers, listeners, and viewers. There is a time and place for any work of expression. I’m arguing that parents must play a leading role – not some outside organization or governmental body. Freedom of choice must prevail. If a parent wants to “protect” their child from certain works, that is not only their right, but their duty. The concerned “Moms” of the world should tend to their own kids. Period.
Often those who want to ban books haven’t even read them. They “heard” someone say there were “bad” words or “vulgar” scenes, never mind the context or the overarching message. For example, an author can write about someone being sexually assaulted not to be gratuitous, but to illustrate a larger point. Cautionary tales and stories of triumph in the face of adversity may not always be pleasant, but they can instruct us. And most of us desperately need to learn how others live and what they must deal with, even at the risk of being shaken out of our complacency.
I plan to read mostly “banned books” for the rest of my life. I’ve already read several and have many more on my reading list. I want to understand why they were “banned,” what ideas were so “objectionable” that someone tried to generalize their offense to everyone else. If you are a Mom for Liberty who doesn’t agree, please feel free to ban me. I could use the free publicity.
MurrayWorks 