Censorship is often linked to the direct transformation of speech by an institution in power. Totalitarian regimes like the ones in North Korea or Russia comes to mind. For a lot of citizens in Europe or the United States censorship is seen as an instrument of power by the 'Other'. The 'Other' are the the non-democratic or non-western states.
After reading the work of Beate Müller in her article about censorship and cultural regulation : mapping the territory, Butlers quote give another insight in what censorship is about.
Censorship is a productive form of power: it is not merely privative, but formative as well. I want to distinguish this position from the one that would claim that speech is incidental to the aims of censorship. Censorship seeks to produce subjects according explicit and implicit norms, and this production of the subject had everything to do with the regulation of speech. By the latter, I do not mean to imply that the subject is narrowly liked to the regulation of that subject's speech, but rather to the regulation of the social domain of speakable discourse
She argues that censorship is about social transformation, the social domain of speakable discourses. This also includes the social values and even behaviors. So the goal of censorship is to create subjects according to the wishes of the one in power. When that succeeds their goal is to maintain the status quo by reinforcing this created social domain or you can even say: created citizens.
This would mean that censorship as instrument to create the minds and culture of the subjects is actually the most powerful instrument institutions in power have access to to control their subjects.
By taking this findings about censorship, and change focus from the 'Other' to my own country, I come to the conclusion that the Netherlands has been very successful in using censorship for social transformation. There are several values, behaviors and beliefs formatted in the Dutch citizens, which benefit the institutions in power to maintain the status quo in political and economical inequalities.
Müller, Beate. „Censorship and Cultural Regulation:
Mapping the Territory.“ Critical Studies. Censorship and Cultural
Regulation in the Modern Age. Ed. By Beate Müller. Amsterdam & New
York: Rodopi, 2004, 1-31.
Picture: http://www.economist.com/node/15980817
Generally, I think that you have made a very valid point, namely that formative censorship is enormously powerful. In my opinion, it is way more powerful than privative censorship, because this has always to do with pressure, this kind of censorship is way more forced than formative censorship, which is less obvious as well.
ReplyDeleteIn one of your first sentences, you mention "totalitarian regimes like the ones in North Korea or Russia." I'm guessing you're aware of it, but Russia is obviously not a totalitarian regime. You probably mean its predecessor the Soviet Union.
What I am missing in your blog is some examples and the comparison with the rest of the world and more specific: Europe. It is only in the last few lines that you mention the Netherlands, but there are no concrete examples of formative censorship given and I'm not sure why you pick out only the Netherlands, as the point of your blog mainly counts for most democratic states, right? In my opinion, e.g. the USA in the 19th century is an even better example of formative censorship, when people were told about an "empire of liberty", a "manifest destiny" (to expand to the West of the continent), the "great experiment of liberty," etc.
Yes, indeed censorship is a tool to form ones citizens. However, this does not mean that the citizens will be exactly the intended product of the censor. As people interpret messages in their own way, so propaganda is differently received by every individual. It might be that through censorship countries such as the Netherlands have produced norms and values etc. that everyone shares, in their own political interest. But is this really the case? censorship does not guarantee coherence/homogeneity among people per se as you argue. Censorship also produces opposition hence, creating altered norms and values that are not beneficial to the ones in power. Furthermore, I do not fully understand what sort of censorship in the Netherlands you are talking about. I do not refute that the Netherlands isn’t guilty of using censorship in its own political advantage, however a specific example would be nice.
ReplyDelete