Book burning

[Jen Faulkner]

Apropos of the recent postings on burnings of HP, but prolly more
off-topic than on, so I'm posting here.

I'd just like to start by saying that, as a scholar, particularly as a
classicist who studies a period (Greco-Roman antiquity) from which a
huge portion of the written works have been lost to us through the
vagaries of time and humans, book burning is repugnant to me.  I can
thing of few things more deleterious to human progress and civilization
than the willful destruction of knowledge and literature in the flame of
intolerance.

Book burning is really the ultimate dramatization of censorship.  When
widely/universally practiced, it actually removes the works to which the
burners are objecting, so that not only *may* no one read them, but no
one *can*.  When accompanied by similar restrictions on (verbal) speech,
the field of discourse actually would become limited to just that which
was acceptable to the determining authority.  Such complete societal
aphasia (though practically, I suspect, impossible) is a terrible thing
to contemplate.

But for the same reason, I believe that we must be careful lest we in
turn advocate censorship of the censors themselves.  Book burning
deserves protection too.

To return specifically to the case of the burnings of HP, it's important
to note that the burners are not in any sense a state-sponsored
group; rather, on their own initiative and with their own capital,
they've undertaken their public display -- which is itself a form of
speech (a speech act[1]).  Book burning is the most extreme form of
disagreement with (the ideas contained in) a book, but such disagreement
is essentially speech, and no less than the authors of the book they're
burning, their speech *must* have protection to promote the free
exchange of ideas, upon which is predicated a society of equality.  Book
burning by an sort of state agent/cy is essentially different and not to
be tolerated.

And again, I very much doubt that the majority of those who hear about
this case of book burning are going to be turned against HP; only those
who already believe the claims that it is opposed to (their) religious
values are likely to think of it as anything but ridiculous.[2] And
while I feel sorry that the children of those people are not going to be
allowed to read HP, I also suspect that that particular reading
restriction is the least of their problems; that they are being raised
with many other restrictions and ideas harmful to themselves and others,
I wouldn't doubt.

So I don't think we need worry about the general reception of these
extremists' ideas.  For example, I was alerted to this news story on
another list before this one, on the classics list at the Univ. of
Washington.  Now, many of these scholars (professors, graduate students,
secondary teachers, and some highly knowledgable laypersons) haven't
read the HP books, but not one of them thought the burners' claims
anything but downright silly and mistaken.  And I strongly suspect that
most people will feel the same way.  The story was being carried by the
(inter)national news as much for the 'oddness' factor as anything.

But even if their ideas were to meet with widespread, if not general
acceptance, I still would unhappily respect not only their right to
express such ideas as they saw fit, but the necessity that they do so,
so long as they act as private citizens and not at all with state
authorization.  When I was younger, I would have undoubtedly thought
that reverse censorship would solve the problem, removing all those
ideas from the discourse which were incorrect (that is, that I didn't
agree with!)[3].  But as I've grown older and hopefully obtained some
larger measure of wisdom, I've realized that I would never want such
power to rest with anyone, not even myself.  Absolute parrhesia is the
only possible safeguard against terrible suppression of ideas and
beliefs.

In some cases, this freedom, which to the greatest extent we do enjoy in
the Unites States, results in speech very uncomfortable for, or even
directly threatening to, myself.[4] But at this point, the only response
I can offer to such speech[5] is my own speech, and that of others.  
Shout from the mountaintops, debate in the legislatures, argue in the
school hallways.

And burn books in the square.

--jen :)

[1] I do know what the 'correct' definition of speech act is (speech
that performs an act, Austin, and it's very limited), but I also think
the 'other' definition (an act that functions as speech) is useful,
particularly in contexts such as this (debating free speech), where acts
that serve the same function as words are being discussed.

[2] Jerry Falwell and the great Tinky Winky controversy.  'Nough said.

[3] The old problem of the political spectrum bending around so that the
extreme left and extreme right meet (communism and fascism having the
most in common with each other).  While my beliefs about the ends are
practically unchanged, my beliefs about the means which one is justified
using to obtain them have altered considerably since I was, say, 14.

[4] Specifically, I'm thinking of anti-gay speech.  Such speech is
frightening enough on its own (and has direct political consequences,
such as lack of passage of gay rights legislation, the continued
presence of sodomy laws on the books in way too many states, etc.,
etc.), but it also is the major causative factor of anti-gay
violence.  Nevertheless, I can't in good conscience advocate its
suppression.  (I won't get into how nervous hate-crimes legislation
makes me.)

[5] And gay bashing (or any other form of violence) IS NOT a speech
act.  The only proper response is from the courts.

* * * * * * 
Jen's HP fics:
http://www.eden.rutgers.edu/~jfaulkne/hp.html
Snapeslash listmom: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/snapeslash
Yes, I *am* the Deictrix.