Conservatives are increasingly emboldened in their censorship. But are liberal-progressives any less censorious – or are their approaches simply harder to spot? We dive in for Freedom to Read Week.
I always peruse the recent additions shelves at my small town local library. They frequently include books and other media titles guaranteed to inflame even moderate conservatives. I can't recall ever seeing a title that any but the most radical progressive would object to.
In the lobby of our library are many carts full of books being weeded from the library and sold for about a dollar each. I have bought a number from these over the years, often replacing paperback versions I had at home with superior hardbound versions. And also picking up many titles which fall into the category which are increasingly within the growing lacuna spoken of in this article. But what I have also noticed is that while I compete for these with others, no one seems to want to buy the plethora of books accumulating which might be objected to buy conservatives. They just sit there month after month.
Glad you referenced the Emily Hanford piece on the low levels of literacy in fourth graders-- I haven't yet listened to the podcast interview but I feel this is important for our profession to discuss if true.
I realized this investigate reporting encapsulates why I treat the expertise heuristic so gingerly -- I think the scholarship and analysis that Rob often cites is completely correct in starting that experts are *generally* correct, but when they *are* wrong, the impact is much broader and deeper in scope than when the average layperson is wrong. ...In this case, a generation's worth of impaired textual literacy nationwide.
This took real courage to write. Here's the question: how can we have truly balanced collections (especially in public libraries) when the publishing industry is not really interested in balance? Library collections are very much GIGO: if the publishers are putting out a preponderance of works supporting worldview A or B, how much work should we be expecting selectors to do to flesh out reality with worldview C and D? I always get kind of annoyed when conservatives in the community blame librarians for the pile of so-called "woke" books on the new book shelves. More than once, I've handed someone a copy of "Publisher's Weekly" and said "These are our choices." At which point does a collection become so...anything...that it is a crisis?
On a micro- level, I advocate soliciting title suggestions from patrons with concerns about the collection. I hope that patron requests still hold some sway in collection development practices. On a macro- level, I anticipate the emergence of a book review service that will specialize in independent press and self-published works (if it doesn't already exist!) to respond to the growing long tail of media production, where a lot of conservative children's / YA book publishing seems to be happening. There are likely numerous blogs already doing this -- all it would take is for someone to upgrade their side hustle to a paying gig!
Part of the problem is what the major publishers putting out, another part is what the review journals are choosing to review. There is some diversity out there if one goes by the Amazon bestseller lists as opposed to the journals.
Interesting that Stanley calls censorship by conservatives "fascism" in the Guardian article (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/feb/13/african-american-studies-republican-ban-florida). I always thought fascism was defined as the merger of state and corporate power, perhaps misattributed to Mussolini (https://politicalresearch.org/2005/01/12/mussolini-corporate-state). So that would apply to something like vaccine mandates if carried out by government in cooperation with pharmaceutical companies. The definition apparently was changed by Merriam-Webster in 1987 amidst some controversy (https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/fascism-corporations-corporatism-dictionary/). The new definition would apply in the way that Stanley is using it here--"a political philosophy, movement, or regime (such as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition." I had no idea that the definition had changed and no longer references corporate power.
I encountered the same thing when I was writing this piece, since I anticipated making a connection between government-corporate censorship and fascism! But yes, the brand of fascism we're both thinking of seems to have been rebranded as corporatism, which of course doesn't pack the same rhetorical punch.
Under the new definition, I now understand why some things are proclaimed "fascist" by certain progressives and others aren't, when, under the old definition, it seemed to me like they often had it backwards.
Good post. There is a lot for me to think about here. I am concerned about the recent increase right wing censorship (I wouldn't call it fascism yet), but I also worry that the ALA's incessant alarmism about RW fanatics (I get a weekly email from the OIF with links to 15-20 stories about RW book banning) is misleading, one-sided, and counterproductive. It is so difficult to try to articulate the problems with the ALA's stance w/o sounding like a RW fanatic myself. Your analysis really sheds light on the dilemma faced by those of us who would like our libraries (and our culture) to be more openminded, intellectually adventurous, and curious.
I was in an online ALA thing a few years ago and we went into breakout groups. A librarian from somewhere in Minnesota admitted openly to the group that she has removed the "Little House" books from her branch. Her rationale was that she has some indigenous patrons--children--who she thinks would be harmed by the portrayal of the "Indians" in the books. When I asked her how this jibes with the profession's purported anti-censorship ethos, she said "They can request the book from one of the 'whiter' branches and I'll get it for them. But I won't have them on my shelves." Crickets from the group. Of course, they may have been as stunned into disgusted silence as I was.
I recently read an interview with Sandy Berman (famous radical cataloger) and was surprised that he said something like "book banning is not always censorious." Per Berman, if you ban books for the wrong reason (b/c you are a right wing bigot), then you are a censor. But if you ban books for the right reason (b/c they have racist language or words that could be interpreted as harmful), then you are not a censor; You are just trying to make the library more welcoming and inclusive. It is a strange way to understand censorship, but I think that it is fairly common amongst librarians these days.
I'm surprised at how often folks read Marcuse and find his jackboot-on-throat arguments convincing. I'm equally surprised that the obvious slippery slope of Popper's trauma-based and reactionary "Paradox" is just shrugged off. The lack of faith in rationality and humanity that censors display--secretly or openly--is sad. Pathetic, even.
Intriguing. I noticed my local library would not carry Abigail Shrier's book despite it being a best seller and despite my requesting it, and I see this as an example of censorship, but one not easily spotted.
This is an excellent piece! It needs wider distribution in our profession.
I always peruse the recent additions shelves at my small town local library. They frequently include books and other media titles guaranteed to inflame even moderate conservatives. I can't recall ever seeing a title that any but the most radical progressive would object to.
In the lobby of our library are many carts full of books being weeded from the library and sold for about a dollar each. I have bought a number from these over the years, often replacing paperback versions I had at home with superior hardbound versions. And also picking up many titles which fall into the category which are increasingly within the growing lacuna spoken of in this article. But what I have also noticed is that while I compete for these with others, no one seems to want to buy the plethora of books accumulating which might be objected to buy conservatives. They just sit there month after month.
Glad you referenced the Emily Hanford piece on the low levels of literacy in fourth graders-- I haven't yet listened to the podcast interview but I feel this is important for our profession to discuss if true.
I realized this investigate reporting encapsulates why I treat the expertise heuristic so gingerly -- I think the scholarship and analysis that Rob often cites is completely correct in starting that experts are *generally* correct, but when they *are* wrong, the impact is much broader and deeper in scope than when the average layperson is wrong. ...In this case, a generation's worth of impaired textual literacy nationwide.
This took real courage to write. Here's the question: how can we have truly balanced collections (especially in public libraries) when the publishing industry is not really interested in balance? Library collections are very much GIGO: if the publishers are putting out a preponderance of works supporting worldview A or B, how much work should we be expecting selectors to do to flesh out reality with worldview C and D? I always get kind of annoyed when conservatives in the community blame librarians for the pile of so-called "woke" books on the new book shelves. More than once, I've handed someone a copy of "Publisher's Weekly" and said "These are our choices." At which point does a collection become so...anything...that it is a crisis?
Thank you for voicing this Darryl! I have noticed this as well and wonder about it often.
On a micro- level, I advocate soliciting title suggestions from patrons with concerns about the collection. I hope that patron requests still hold some sway in collection development practices. On a macro- level, I anticipate the emergence of a book review service that will specialize in independent press and self-published works (if it doesn't already exist!) to respond to the growing long tail of media production, where a lot of conservative children's / YA book publishing seems to be happening. There are likely numerous blogs already doing this -- all it would take is for someone to upgrade their side hustle to a paying gig!
Part of the problem is what the major publishers putting out, another part is what the review journals are choosing to review. There is some diversity out there if one goes by the Amazon bestseller lists as opposed to the journals.
What a great critical analysis of the information world. Thank you for writing and sharing this thought provoking piece!
Interesting that Stanley calls censorship by conservatives "fascism" in the Guardian article (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/feb/13/african-american-studies-republican-ban-florida). I always thought fascism was defined as the merger of state and corporate power, perhaps misattributed to Mussolini (https://politicalresearch.org/2005/01/12/mussolini-corporate-state). So that would apply to something like vaccine mandates if carried out by government in cooperation with pharmaceutical companies. The definition apparently was changed by Merriam-Webster in 1987 amidst some controversy (https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/fascism-corporations-corporatism-dictionary/). The new definition would apply in the way that Stanley is using it here--"a political philosophy, movement, or regime (such as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition." I had no idea that the definition had changed and no longer references corporate power.
I encountered the same thing when I was writing this piece, since I anticipated making a connection between government-corporate censorship and fascism! But yes, the brand of fascism we're both thinking of seems to have been rebranded as corporatism, which of course doesn't pack the same rhetorical punch.
Under the new definition, I now understand why some things are proclaimed "fascist" by certain progressives and others aren't, when, under the old definition, it seemed to me like they often had it backwards.
Good post. There is a lot for me to think about here. I am concerned about the recent increase right wing censorship (I wouldn't call it fascism yet), but I also worry that the ALA's incessant alarmism about RW fanatics (I get a weekly email from the OIF with links to 15-20 stories about RW book banning) is misleading, one-sided, and counterproductive. It is so difficult to try to articulate the problems with the ALA's stance w/o sounding like a RW fanatic myself. Your analysis really sheds light on the dilemma faced by those of us who would like our libraries (and our culture) to be more openminded, intellectually adventurous, and curious.
I was in an online ALA thing a few years ago and we went into breakout groups. A librarian from somewhere in Minnesota admitted openly to the group that she has removed the "Little House" books from her branch. Her rationale was that she has some indigenous patrons--children--who she thinks would be harmed by the portrayal of the "Indians" in the books. When I asked her how this jibes with the profession's purported anti-censorship ethos, she said "They can request the book from one of the 'whiter' branches and I'll get it for them. But I won't have them on my shelves." Crickets from the group. Of course, they may have been as stunned into disgusted silence as I was.
I recently read an interview with Sandy Berman (famous radical cataloger) and was surprised that he said something like "book banning is not always censorious." Per Berman, if you ban books for the wrong reason (b/c you are a right wing bigot), then you are a censor. But if you ban books for the right reason (b/c they have racist language or words that could be interpreted as harmful), then you are not a censor; You are just trying to make the library more welcoming and inclusive. It is a strange way to understand censorship, but I think that it is fairly common amongst librarians these days.
I'm surprised at how often folks read Marcuse and find his jackboot-on-throat arguments convincing. I'm equally surprised that the obvious slippery slope of Popper's trauma-based and reactionary "Paradox" is just shrugged off. The lack of faith in rationality and humanity that censors display--secretly or openly--is sad. Pathetic, even.
Intriguing. I noticed my local library would not carry Abigail Shrier's book despite it being a best seller and despite my requesting it, and I see this as an example of censorship, but one not easily spotted.