In
the Censorship and Social Transformation
course the focus is mainly on the past and present. We know the past of
censorship, more and more information on this is being brought into day light.
We are currently living and observing the present state of censorship. What about the future though?
When
we look at the past it appears that it was easier to practice censorship and apart
from self-censorship there were two types: pre-publication censorship and
licensing. The old understanding of the censorship concept was very narrow.
However
as Butler described: “Censorship is a productive
form of power: it is not merely privative, but formative as well.” (252) The
invention of the printing press changed the concept of censorship and created a
new dimension, now there was more material to control and censor.
With
time, especially with the developments in communication and technology, and increased
globalization, new forms of opposition arose such as: independent journalism,
blogging, Facebook and Twitter. With all these changes came a new understanding
of censorship, a view that was broader than the old approach. It believed that censorship
was everywhere and it was unavoidable, irrespective of the given
socio-political context. (Müller 5)
An
example of this can be seen in Cuba where blogging was directly born out of the
constraint on public debate in the physical world. The state had control over the
internet too so they set up the on a server outside of the island which is
called “blind blogging”. In April 2007, Yoani Sánchez started a personal blog
called Generation Y which she defined as “an exercise in cowardice” as it lets
her say in this space, what is forbidden to her in in her civic action. Through
the blog she made it into Time/CNNs 25
Best Blogs in The World list and had the chance to interview U.S. President
Barack Obama. It can be said that the
state’s tight control served as a political magnifying glass and the
censorship backfired.
Therefore
the idea is that with all these developments there will be more ways to express
ideas but there will also be more ways to censor these ideas. In the end it all
comes down to the question: Which one will win in this constant battle? The
censor or the censored?
Butler,
Judith. "Ruled out: Vocabularies of the censor." Censorship
and silencing: practices of cultural regulation (1998):
247-259.
Müller,
Beate. "Censorship and cultural regulation: Mapping the territory."Critical Studies 22.1 (2003): 1-31.
"My Profile." Generation Y. N.p., 03 July
2008. Web. 22 Feb. 2015.
The productive power of censorship is fascinating indeed, as Ecesu illustrated with the blog of Yoani Sánchez. However, I would argue this claim assumes too much power on the side of the artist and is only valid in situations of moderate censorship. There is a certain degree of repression that cannot be overcome, whichever medium is used. In Syria, for example, the rapper Ibrahim Qashoush was found murdered and with his vocal chords cut out after singing a song with lyrics that criticized the government. This is censorship in its most cruel and literal way. Even though this is one extreme, it does highlight the freedoms one needs before one can circumvent the censor. Before an artist can use technological developments for expressing what would otherwise be censored, it needs certain freedoms, like access to these technologies. The most repressive governments are very fast at adopting, appropriating and controlling such technologies. Thus, censorship can only be productive within certain limits of censorship and freedom of thought and expression.
ReplyDeleteThe example of the Syrian rapper that you gave is indeed a very sad and extreme example. You may be right that the claim assumes too much power on the side of the artist, it may have been that I like to believe in possibilities and positive outcomes more than the negatives.
DeleteIndeed your point is correct that certain freedoms are necessary first but censorship has existed for a very long time, under very cruel regimes too in the past. Wouldn't this show that, even under the cruelest regimes there are still artists who, at least try to, keep up with the battle? And that censorship and the censored were both productive in their own ways?
Ecesu presents an intriguing debate about the future of censorship in the globalising world, citing a contemporary example and key questions, the most provoking of which being “Which one will win in this constant battle? The censor or the censored?”. I wish to focus on this particular question, critiquing the reduction of only two actors being the censor and censored; and the idea one party could indeed “win” from censorship. Firstly the very idea that the battle is censor to censored is overlooking issues of self-censorship, which may beyond state guidelines, and may relate to a wider discourse, whether it be societal or religious. Secondly in reference to either entity winning presumes one can reduce censorship to winners and losers, but as the Judith Butler’s quote implies, censorship is “productive”. Moreover censorship is a natural element of communication, attempts to communicate without censorship is impossible (Muller). Therefore one must conclude that one cannot discuss winners or losers to this battle, as there will be no end to this battle, censorship as Ecesu continues to evolve parallel to our communication methods.
ReplyDeleteI tried to keep the post short due to the word limit thus the simplification of the arguments and the reduction of only two actors. However you are correct and I must admit that I have forgotten to consider self-censorship while writing the post. Thanks for pointing that out, as self-censorship definitely plays a very important role.
DeleteAbout your second point, I agree that there will be no winners or losers in this battle, which I tried to portray with the following sentences: "Therefore the idea is that with all these developments there will be more ways to express ideas but there will also be more ways to censor these ideas."
I wanted to shape the question in such a way that the answer would also be in it: "Which one will win in this constant battle?" Neither, because it is a "constant" battle and it will keep being one. Once again thank you for your point, I should have made it more clear regarding the question and how the answer is hidden in the question.