All Reading Is Political
Debate: This is the writer's opinion
All Reading Is Political
Imagine telling your own child that they cannot go out and explore the world. Seems weird, right? Now imagine a world where someone who has a higher power over society is calling the shots on what and what not the people in that society are allowed to explore. Seems almost dystopian. Am I right again? This is something that seems so obscure and terrifying to realize that it is, in fact, happening right now. All right, maybe not in the sense of exploring this world. Perhaps you know the saying, “The world is a book, and those who do not travel read only one page.” (Saint Augustine) By then banning books, they are limiting people's access to the world and to be able to explore by removing their access to “controversial” books.
While yes, I can argue that some books should definitely be banned, like Mein Kampf by Adolf Hitler; It should have been banned to limit his influence. However, arguably, books like The Bell Jar by Sylvia Plath shouldn’t be banned. Yes, it does include some themes that can be harmful in the wrong hands, but it also teaches an important lesson that I think should be available for everyone. Not to mention all the books that have been banned just because they contain LGBTQ+ content. It sends the message that being in the LGBTQ+ community is wrong. In a country like the US, where the First Amendment protects free speech, including literature, the president wants to ban even more books, going against this human right. By banning books, people are given limited access to diverse ideas, and it restricts people’s personal choices. If we look at the history of book banning (link to text), one can see that totalitarian regimes like Nazi Germany have a history of banning books to control people's thoughts. Sounds a lot like 1984 by George Orwell (1949)— which is also banned, by the way— and it’s definitely scary to think about and wonder if it will happen in the US. Although the banning of books in the US isn’t something that has started with President Trump, the US has a history of banning books that usually challenge topics that should be allowed to be talked about freely, like gender norms or even racial norms.All reading is political, but why? It’s because every single book reflects cultural, social, or political ideas. Even so-called neutral books uphold certain kinds of values or worldviews. I believe that what can be damaging or inappropriate varies between people. It doesn’t have to mean the same thing to everyone. There is some kind of subjectivity when it comes to what is considered damaging or not suitable for everyone in books. In some books, what made them become banned is the discussion of societal issues, like Beloved by Toni Morrison (1987), which is actually based on a true story. The real event followed Margaret Garner who, like the main character in Morrison's Beloved, killed her own daughter to prevent going back to enslavement. It was her life that inspired Morrison’s novel. I think that banning books like these, that talk about the real events of someone who has been through something so horrible—like The Diary of a Young Girl by Anne Frank (1947)—is repressing, in some kind of way.
When discussing banning books, censorship is important to mention. Censorship is the suppression of content or ideas, and the act of banning books is a type of censorship that can take many forms (link to text). There are bans happening in a lot of schools and libraries. Then, some bans forbid the book in the entirety of the country. I argue that deciding what people can’t read, through censorship itself, is actually a political act. Books should not be banned. They should be read, discussed, criticized, and thought about.
So that being said, do you think that all reading is political?
Sources:
Comments
Post a Comment