Power, Censorship, and Validation

Abstract

Power, Censorship, and Validation Oscar G. Brockett Several months ago when Jean Korf insisted that I give her a title for this address, I somewhat hastily and, in retrospect, rather foolishly, said that I would speak on "censorship and its perils," the title that has appeared in subsequent information about today's program. While I still intend to talk in part about censorship, I've decided that my remarks can more accurately be titled "Power, Censorship, and Validation." You may well wonder why I chose to speak about censorship—I might say that during the past couple of weeks I've wondered about that myself. But the answer is relatively simple. At the time when I accepted the invitation, I had been reading and thinking about reactions to the large amount of obscene language and explicit sexual reference in last year's Irene Ryan competitions here at the Kennedy Center. While I am not talking today specifically about that matter, what I have to say did begin with that concern. Censorship is something that most of us hope we won't have to confront . Nevertheless, it is something that has been with us since the beginning of time and no doubt always will be. In the arts, we often see it as concerned merely with issues about what should be permitted or prohibited. But the arts are secondary; the primary issue always is one of power, a battle over which group's values and standards shall prevail. Opinion polls indicate that most Americans are opposed to censorship. But this is not as cut and dried as it might sound. Pressed, almost everyone will admit that some things should not be allowed. So-called "snuff" films, in which sexual activity culminates in one or more of the performers actually being mutilated or killed, is an example of what I presume most people would oppose. Whether or not the performers are actually killed, as rumor has it, the inflicting of real bodily harm seems a place where censorship would be an appropriate response. Even those who state an absolute opposition to censorship usually add a qualifier—so long as no one is physically harmed. Physical harm is, nevertheless, a qualifier which indicates that opposition to censorship is not absolute. Similarly, many of those belonging to what is characterized as "the religious right" also declare their opposition to censorship but add their own 2 Oscar G. Brockett qualifier—so long as some group's moral beliefs or religious faith are not attacked. My own conclusion is that, when pressed, almost everyone will draw the line somewhere. The question, then, is not so much whether a line will be drawn but where it is to be drawn and who is to draw it? One place where most people accede to drawing the line comes when children are the intended audience. But when does one reach an age when censored material is no longer to be considered harmful? Our legal definitions usually indicate eighteen or twenty-one as the age of maturity. But many would-be censors do not stop there. They seek to keep everyone in a state of perpetual childhood by forbidding adults access to much of the material denied to children. Few of these would-be censors acknowledge that they, personally, could be harmed by the material they want to forbid others. Their implied, if not always stated, message is that weaker persons, apparently the rest of the population, must be shielded from influences they otherwise would be incapable of resisting. This protectionist attitude has a very long history, going back at least to Plato, who argued that writers should not be allowed to disseminate their work to the public until it had been approved by the Guardians of the state. To win approval for dissemination, writing was to contain nothing contrary to the good of society as conceived by the Guardians, a small group presumably qualified to determine for all citizens what was best for them. (These arguments are set forth most fully in The Republic.) Plato's ideas were passed down through the ages, and in almost every society there have been those who have championed them. Taken to their...