Censorship vs Cultural Sensitivity

A recent debate sprang up in my online critique group over whether or not to publish a particular story on the website. The story had won an award and publishing was part of the prize. But the story contained a word—a name, actually—within a context that likely would have offended a certain demographic of people. (I’m intentionally being vague in order to examine the broader issue instead of the specific instance.)

Some thought the name should be edited out; that our group should not publish the work unless edited. Censored. Others thought that, though provocative, usage was clearly within the bounds of the story, so the work should be allowed to be published as written. Untouched. A middle group disagreed with censorship but thought a warning that some readers may find the content offensive should go at the top.

The question raged: at what point should we allow people to read what they want and take responsibility for their reading choices versus preemptively censoring the story for them?

The debate has stayed with me.

Cultural Sensitivity

I believe there are some topics—and the definition of which is certainly subjective—that authors not of that background or demographic should not write about. As a middle-class white male, I don’t presume to know the struggles of racial profiling, religious discrimination, or being subjected to sexism in the workplace. So I don’t write stories with those main themes.

That is not to say I might not have a character dealing with one of those issues. I want my stories filled with diverse, rounded, believable characters. But those issues are generally not central to the story. For example, where I might have an Asian or Jewish character, I would not presume to write about Chinese family customs or life growing up in Israel.

But beyond these very personal aspects, these different demographic groups also exist within a broader society. And the differences of thought among these groups can (and has) lead to conflict. Historically, groups that live near one another have faced conflict. Different ethnicities have faced conflict. Different religions with different views have come into conflict. Expansion of societal boundaries and norms has caused conflict.

Stories should absolutely be allowed to examine and comment on these conflicts.

Power of Speculative Fiction

Speculative Fiction is a super-genre that is well-suited for examining these issues and allows us to examine societal, religious, and political issues in broad groups. Aliens, distant planets, dystopian futures, or even parallel worlds all offer mechanisms to “disguise” certain groups yet discuss issues central to them. (If people can’t see that stormtroopers and the empire from Star Wars embody the same traits as 1940s fascist Germany, then they aren’t looking hard enough.)

But disguising these demographics isn’t the only benefit of speculative fiction. Outlandish “what if” scenarios can be dropped into today’s society just as easily to examine certain thoughts or beliefs. We want to call out radical ideas and throw light on them, to examine them, and to try and understand them. And maybe by understanding them, or at least through the examination, we learn a little more about ourselves.

I’m not talking about calling out specific individuals or including libelous or illegal content. I agree that crosses a line, and I would not want to put someone in danger. But looking at the beliefs and actions of large groups should be okay.

Personal Triggers

I also briefly want to mention that I’m not talking about elements of stories that are especially violent or horrific. That is a different type of content, and I have no issue with content warnings before stories that contain graphic or sexual violence, suicide/self-harm, violence against children or animals, racism/hate speech, or homophobia/transphobia, particularly if it is excessive or gratuitous.

Authors must take care to include only what is necessary for their story, and some stories might include some of these elements. But again, I’m not advocating for censorship, either.

Readers should take responsibility for what they read, and a content warning before a story with potential triggers is absolutely appropriate.

Slippery Slope

Starting down the path of censorship quickly leads to a slippery slope. If we’re willing to edit a name, what else are we willing to censor? Certain themes? Certain groups? Certain ideas?

And who decides this censorship? In our debate, the adage of the US Supreme Court about defining pornography as “know it when we see it” suffers from the fallacy that different people see differently. It is the same with censorship. And who are we to tell another what they can and can’t read.

People should have the capability to choose what they want to read. And, easily enough, if they find something controversial or offensive, they can simply stop reading.

Fanatics

There are extremists out there of every ilk. Pick a controversial topic, whether religious, political, or social, and there are fervent believers on either side. And some of these fanatics—white supremacists, jihadists, anti-abortionists—are violent.

But, do we choose to live in fear of what might happen, or do we not let them influence our decisions? Again, the answer is different for different people, and many prefer safety over freedom. (Ironically, it is this classic argument between freedom and security that has been the topic of many speculative fiction stories, Isaac Asimov’s I, Robot one of the first that comes to mind.)

But I prefer to live actively and with intent; to stand up for the freedom of speech instead of cower behind the facade of security.

Conclusion

The debate of Cultural Sensitivity vs Censorship is a personal one with a boundary that is going to fall differently for different people. Deeply conservative people will tend toward censoring out anything with which they don’t believe. Radically liberal people (libertarians) will advocate no need for censorship or content warnings of anything.

For me, I fall more on the liberal side of the spectrum. I see the need for content warnings in some instances, such as with violent content, but otherwise, I generally believe stories shouldn't have them. Even if some demographics get offended.

And I’m fully against censorship as we don’t live in an authoritarian society (yet). Others should not control what I can and cannot read. I am an adult and can make that decision for myself.

We must be careful with censorship, because once we surrender our own capacity to make these decisions for ourselves—what we can read and what we can't, what ideas are okay and which aren't—we may never get it back.