Silence Expanded

Censorship is counterproductive

We all know that learning is an encounter with the “other”. Knowledge is gained by an encounter with something other than one’s own self. By meeting differences.

This is also on a behavioral level – how can one know what NOT to do when that thing that should not be done is not encountered within a safe space of discourse?

What I mean by “safe space of discourse” here is the area where action and reaction are mythologized, elevated to the realm of being apart from that which actually, currently is usually by the means of media and art.

One of the silliest things I have seen censored, for instance, is the use of Mr. Bean (of all things!) with children.

Exactly the perfect piece of media to teach children how they are not socially expected to behave!

This is, of course not limited to action but also the presentation of ideas.

Ideas cannot be engaged with if they are not presented, to begin with. There is nothing to learn from something which it is conventionally asked: “not to exist.”

Which is, in fact, what censorship is.

I am not saying “anything goes.”

What I am saying is that it is one thing not to air steamy sex scenes during the hours children would be watching television; that is not censorship, that is adaptation.

And entirely another to pretend that homosexuality does not exist by perpetually removing it from all media.

Censorship is expecting things not to “be”. Which is just not realistic.

Exactly why, as stated a few weeks back, I pointed out why religious symbols should not be censored, for instance. As well as any sort of sexuality, gender, and so forth.

It is only relationally that we can ask people to learn by engaging critically with any “other.” It is only by exposing children to the idea of “fire” that they would know that it burns.

Would I burn their finger to do so? Of course not.

Would I show them a video of someone burning to death, screaming bloody murder? Definitely not.

I would burn a splint and tell them that it would do worse to them.

A student which is unable to imagine is a different discussion altogether and on yet another level I am still trying to think of ways of doing so. I have been blessed with quite a vivid imagination, but it is sadly limited. Feedback would be appreciated.

In other words, fiction. Myth. Metaphor, even. Elevating them to the realm of the meaningful images which can be interacted with without being directly involved.

Ergo, by engaging with media they are able to engage without inflicting trauma.

I would not show a child the reality of murder by showing them Sweeney Todd (which I love), but the Land Before Time and the death of Little Foot’s Mum, something they are able to engage with but are separated from both in style (it’s a cartoon), in time (dinosaurs) and, well, species! (Dinosaurs!)

I would not show a child the reality of racial discrimination in American History X, but I would expose them to the likes the X-Men animated series and Digimon Adventure Tri, both of which tackle diversity politics in a very easily digestible manner without getting into explicit racial violence or the complexities of intersectionality and the like.

I would not show a child Call Me By Your Name to understand that a relationship between like genders is acceptable, but sow the seeds of its normality with Luca, which is an ideal representation as it could easily fit within a myriad of representations without dumbing it down or making it preachy.

I would not show a child one of my favorite movies, Trainspotting, to understand responsibility, but I would show them the Lion King.

And so forth.

This extends to adults. It is one thing to address Daphne Caruana Galizia’s mode of thinking by creating a mythic figure representing her and mimicking her mannerisms and echoing her gestures to criticize her decision-making. But it is entirely another to up and say that it was right for her to have been blown up. The former should not be censored, the latter should simply not have been done. Both beg discussion on her decisions and their consequences, but only one (wrongfully) gives her tragic end legitimacy.

It is one thing to address PN’s Wunderkind digging an early grave for their party and depicting them pulling the lever of the gallows and sending a figure representing the party to its last twitch; entirely another to plaster their faces onto a coffin. THAT is hate speech. THAT seeks to legitimatize their harm.

And so forth.