Sensitivity or Censorship: the Classic PC Debate
Yesterday, I read this NY Times article about sensitivity readers who screen books to make sure they won't violate major principles of navigating social identities. Basically, they're experts on "politically correct" language and ideas, and authors enlist them to review works before publication to prevent vitriolic backlash.
I was annoyed with how the backlash was framed. We see this a lot in the classic PC debate- the fear of social justice warriors tearing someone apart keeps people from speaking what's in their heart. And I agree that this can be fair critique, sometimes we can get a little self-righteous or exhausted or jaded and we don't always meet people with grace and patience.
I was annoyed with how the backlash was framed. We see this a lot in the classic PC debate- the fear of social justice warriors tearing someone apart keeps people from speaking what's in their heart. And I agree that this can be fair critique, sometimes we can get a little self-righteous or exhausted or jaded and we don't always meet people with grace and patience.
BUT getting angry tweets demanding thoughtful representation is not the same as never getting to see yourself in literature. So many people from marginalized backgrounds read about people who don't look like them or don't share the same formative experiences they've had, and they eagerly accept the crumbs of tokenism when they infrequently appear. Myself included. Representation is especially important in children's books because kids have vivid imaginations and seeing protagonists like themselves going on adventures and having stories that are worth being told can be so special. Children's books can be dangerous too if they contain stereotypes about people who never get to write about themselves. Some kids will accept these stereotypes about others as fact, and some kids will internalize these stereotypes about themselves. Children are especially vulnerable to representation and easily influenced by stereotyping, and we must be vigilant about the literature and media they consume.
The whole time I read the article, I kept thinking that one obvious solution to this "sensitivity vs censorship" problem is to just publish more diverse authors. Why make such a scene about hiring a sensitivity reader when you can have someone who has lived that experience write their story themselves?
But I realize it's not that simple. Should white authors already in power with publishing deals just not write any characters of color and whitewash their whole cast? Should straight authors stay away from writing any LGBTQ characters? No, that doesn't seem right. But those that do need to hold themselves to a high standard, flesh out these characters into multidimensional people that can't be reduced to a single facet of their identity. And these authors need to do their research.
The fear of backlash and subsequent self-censorship still seem farfetched to me. Terrors of censorship interfering with literary artistry seem misplaced because it implies that we're willing to overlook racism (or any other similar transgression) for ART, but who gets to decide what art is meaningful? Because art with racism does not hold the same beauty for people of color as it might for white people. Terrible representation necessarily precludes thought-provoking literature, at least for me. That being said, if an author (@Laura Moriarty) truly believes in their book after having done extensive research, then stand by it amidst the backlash and controversy and lean into the discomfort to learn from the critique people have to offer. If it's as ground-breaking as you and your carefully assembled sensitivity team think that it is, then your book sales should be just fine. Your new book is taking a risk, and risks always have financial considerations. If book sales truly are your priority, then stick to safer topics in your writing. I don't want to invalidate the issues that Moriarty shared in the article, but there was no discussion about what a privilege it is to be published in the first place, to have your story on a platform where others can read and critique it.
If we don't worry about psychology or legal experts causing censorship in books, then why are we all up in arms about sensitivity readers? People hire authorities of these fields to make sure that the content of their book is factually accurate and somewhat realistic; doing this for more sensitive issues of race, sexuality, or religion is not much different. Sensitivity readers can't speak on behalf of an entire identity group, but it's good to see that they're able to turn a profit from all of this. So often marginalized people are just expected to do this work without compensation for their emotional labor.
I still stand by my initial solution, which is to publish a varied selection of authors who can personally speak to the experiences that some authors are terrified of tiptoeing around. These "diverse" authors are out there, and they're writing really cool things, and they need more opportunities to get published so they can make a living off of creating art.
xoxo,
Juhi
The whole time I read the article, I kept thinking that one obvious solution to this "sensitivity vs censorship" problem is to just publish more diverse authors. Why make such a scene about hiring a sensitivity reader when you can have someone who has lived that experience write their story themselves?
But I realize it's not that simple. Should white authors already in power with publishing deals just not write any characters of color and whitewash their whole cast? Should straight authors stay away from writing any LGBTQ characters? No, that doesn't seem right. But those that do need to hold themselves to a high standard, flesh out these characters into multidimensional people that can't be reduced to a single facet of their identity. And these authors need to do their research.
The fear of backlash and subsequent self-censorship still seem farfetched to me. Terrors of censorship interfering with literary artistry seem misplaced because it implies that we're willing to overlook racism (or any other similar transgression) for ART, but who gets to decide what art is meaningful? Because art with racism does not hold the same beauty for people of color as it might for white people. Terrible representation necessarily precludes thought-provoking literature, at least for me. That being said, if an author (@Laura Moriarty) truly believes in their book after having done extensive research, then stand by it amidst the backlash and controversy and lean into the discomfort to learn from the critique people have to offer. If it's as ground-breaking as you and your carefully assembled sensitivity team think that it is, then your book sales should be just fine. Your new book is taking a risk, and risks always have financial considerations. If book sales truly are your priority, then stick to safer topics in your writing. I don't want to invalidate the issues that Moriarty shared in the article, but there was no discussion about what a privilege it is to be published in the first place, to have your story on a platform where others can read and critique it.
If we don't worry about psychology or legal experts causing censorship in books, then why are we all up in arms about sensitivity readers? People hire authorities of these fields to make sure that the content of their book is factually accurate and somewhat realistic; doing this for more sensitive issues of race, sexuality, or religion is not much different. Sensitivity readers can't speak on behalf of an entire identity group, but it's good to see that they're able to turn a profit from all of this. So often marginalized people are just expected to do this work without compensation for their emotional labor.
I still stand by my initial solution, which is to publish a varied selection of authors who can personally speak to the experiences that some authors are terrified of tiptoeing around. These "diverse" authors are out there, and they're writing really cool things, and they need more opportunities to get published so they can make a living off of creating art.
xoxo,
Juhi
Comments
Post a Comment