lirazel | (no subject)

Unpopular opinion: the Read Banned Books/celebration of banned books/etc. framing that the ALA and library culture in general seems to be leaning into is not helpful.

Like, it's fine for blue states, I guess. (The one time I lived in a blue state for a few years, I was living in the red part of the state, so I don't have experience with this sort of thing.)

But it absolutely does not work in red states. It leans into the snobby liberal elitist stereotype and is off-putting to anyone who isn't on your team. And what sucks about it that there is a perfectly good alternate approach:

Freedom to read

Frame your anti-censorship position as promoting intellectual freedom, freedom of ideas, pushing back against the ability for some people to tell others what they are able to read, and you immediately have a much, much more legitimate perspective that could actually reach some people who aren't already on your side.

Obviously, there will be plenty of people this won't reach. But if the local public library is like, "You [and your child] should be able to read whatever you want [your child] to read without some other person telling you you can't. You wouldn't want another parent making that choice for your child, would you?" some people will go, "Huh. That's a decent point."

I literally do not understand why the ALA doesn't get this, unless the entire leadership is people who have only ever lived/served in blue states.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

I totally feel this; as someone who also lives in a red state, I often find myself thinking about how progressive/for-the-benefit-of-society ideas could be reframed to appeal to the right-leaning people here. Most of the time I think it wouldn't even be very hard!

Right? It doesn't take that much effort at all! (I mean, sometimes it does. But sometimes there are alternatives that are right there!)

I think that a lot of these celebrations of banned books could be useful in theory, to avoid these books from being forgotten/ignored. But if they aren't supported by a stronger and broader anti-censorship policy, these things end up being performative and elitist, also hypocritical and ironic (as it happens here, where the attempts from the local city government to recommend books banned by the dictatorship are laughable, because the government itself is still pro-armed forces and conservative/right wing overall. No one really believes what they are doing, but it looks very shiny and politically correct, doesn't it? >:(

And it's not as if books/culture aren't still banned or silenced these days, so as well as rescuing those from the past, it's important to make sure that the freedom to read and choose, like you said, is never taken away in the first place, and that this message reaches as many people as possible.

On a somewhat-related note, I've been seeing a lot of hopeful opinions about the new ALA president, partly because of her political ideologies, and partly because of her being part of a minority (I've also seen some ugly ones, but I wasn't surprised, because some people are gross)--what do you think things will look like in the future/when her term starts?

Edited 2022-09-26 18:48 (UTC)

Imo, the vast majority of banned books are in no danger of being forgotten or ignored, at least in the US. The ones I see getting banned are still widely read anyway.

as it happens here, where the attempts from the local city government to recommend books banned by the dictatorship are laughable, because the government itself is still pro-armed forces and conservative/right wing overall. No one really believes what they are doing, but it looks very shiny and politically correct, doesn't it? >:(

Ah. Yeah. That's a very different environment from the US one.

it's important to make sure that the freedom to read and choose, like you said, is never taken away in the first place, and that this message reaches as many people as possible.

Agreed!

I'm hopeful too! I haven't been involved enough in ALA to know much pull the president has, but we'll see!

I think you are spot on, and I also think this is where messaging can actually make-or-break a movement. If the goal is to not ban books, you can't use the same messaging anywhere because of people's starting constructs.

I literally do not understand why the ALA doesn't get this, unless the entire leadership is people who have only ever lived/served in blue states.

Possibly this, but I also see a lot of problems like this where the response is "well they should just AGREE with us!" Like. Okay. But they don't. So do you want to achieve change or just be the loudest most right person in the room???

If the goal is to not ban books, you can't use the same messaging anywhere because of people's starting constructs.

Exactly.

but I also see a lot of problems like this where the response is "well they should just AGREE with us!" Like. Okay. But they don't. So do you want to achieve change or just be the loudest most right person in the room???

Yes. This is such a problem in a lot of different areas.

I find I disagree with this pretty strongly. I think my clarifying note is

elperian's comment "If the goal is to not ban books...". To my mind, that is not the rhetorical point that matters.

To Jews, the tendency of the people in power to try to ban books is one of those taking the temperature to tell things are bad moves. If there is a media movement against banning books and people stand up and say that, actually, as an aesthetic matter, actually we're against that, that's how I know it's time for me to pack my bags.

I'm not interested in winning those people over. And telling them that actually this is about giving them power might be better rhetoric, but it doesn't make me feel any safer.

I mean, I've long had bones to pick with the ALA's presentation myself, but they're different. They call it Banned Books Week, but in actuality it's Banned or Challenged books, and from my perspective there's a really significant difference, in terms of that temperature-taking, between whether some random parent challenges a book, as opposed to when the book is actually taken off of shelves. And the ALA almost invariably makes it hard to tell the difference.

I'm not interested in winning those people over. And telling them that actually this is about giving them power might be better rhetoric, but it doesn't make me feel any safer.

Thank you for sharing your thoughts on this. I really appreciate this and it makes a lot of sense from that perspective.

but in actuality it's Banned or Challenged books, and from my perspective there's a really significant difference, in terms of that temperature-taking, between whether some random parent challenges a book, as opposed to when the book is actually taken off of shelves. And the ALA almost invariably makes it hard to tell the difference.

Absolutely! This is so often overlooked, and the difference is huge.