I’ve been thinking a lot about issues of censorship lately.
* the Birmingham Repertory Theatre closed the play ‘Bezhti’ after mass protests by the Sikh community. The play, written by a Sikh woman, featured a scene of rape in a Gurdwara (essentially a temple space), which was the basis of the protests – it wasn’t the depiction of rape, or criticism of Sikh culture, or presentation of Sikh elders as deeply flawed individuals, it was the use of this sacred space that had people up in arms. (At least, if you believe the protesters were being genuine, and I for one do.)
* the BBC screened ‘Jerry Springer: The Opera’ which commits the crimes of foul language and disrespectful depiction of Adam, Eve, Jesus and God. (Jesus: “I suppose I am a bit gay.”) Massive, organised public outcry from an apparently small Christian lobby (over the television broadcast, note; they have no problem with the ongoing west end run).
* Prince Harry snapped wearing a Nazi outfit at a fancy-dress party, to immense international condemnation
* Anime “Puni Puni Poemi” is banned in New Zealand for its depiction of rape of children, even though it was intended as a barbed and condemnatory satire of exactly that the kind of unsavory content
* a local blogger is sacked from his job at a bookstore for making negative comments about it in his blog, even though the bookstore chain has previously traded on its support for the principle of free speech.
* a Dutch film-maker was killed, apparently in retaliation for his role in making and promoting a film enacting criticism of misogyny in Islam by an (ex?-)Islamic woman
There are other incidents, but those are ones that come to mind right now. In their particulars, they are all quite different and raise different questions, but they all point towards the confusions bound up with the idea of censorship.
I’m not even close to a coherent, resolved opinion on any of these issues. They strike me as a particularly difficult area of ethics and morality that will always be with us, because there will always be a ground where the worthy principles of freedom of expression and protection of the vulnerable come into conflict.
But here are some more thoughts.
Puni Puni Poemy
The decision to ban Puni Puni Poemi in New Zealand is one I can support.
The key paragraph in the report is as follows:
“Although there is a distinct tongue-in-cheek element to the publication, satirising the conventions of this particular style of anime, the scenes described are included in the story, and comprise the main theme of the story. By presenting this activity in a manner designed to entertain and titillate the viewer, the publication encourages a viewpoint that acts such as coercion are to be viewed as acceptable behaviour. In addition the child characters are attributed with adult sexual behaviours, reinforcing the notion that children and young persons are viable sexual partners.” (hmm, can’t find a copy of this to link to. anyone with more google-fu?)
Essentially, the office found that even though the material was satirical in intent, it still depicted sexual coercion of and sexual behaviours in child characters in a manner designed to entertain and titillate. That makes it objectionable.
I’ve not seen Poemi, and have no desire to do so. I accept that the Office might have gone too far with this decision – that they might have banned something that really isn’t injurious to the public good. But it seems to me that they have applied the legislation sensibly and come to an appropriate decision. I’m prepared to accept decisions I might personally disagree with if the process is sound, and I believe here that it is.
The sexual presentation of children is not something to trifle with, in my opinion, and I have no problem with a Censorship regime that decides to err on the side of caution in relation to this issue.
Jerry Springer: The Opera
I can’t support the voices that wanted this restricted from broadcast. I have no truck with complaints over the foul language, and the elements that had been called disrespectful to religion weren’t particularly prevalent. Additionally, Christianity has long been subject to this kind of cultural interrogation – Milton’s Paradise Lost being a classic example – and has, to my mind, emerged all the stronger for it. The assertion that it’s fine on the stage but not on television seems an odd one to me, as well – sure, television is push technology instead of pull, and sure it will reach a much larger audience, but I don’t see how either factor impacts on complaints over the content of such a programme. It is not hard to see how a presentation of ‘The Merchant of Venice’ with its hook-nosed Shylock would have very different consequences in Tel Aviv 2005 than in Berlin 1935.
Bezhti
This one is trickier. An additional principle comes into play, namely the fact that the Sikh community is a minority community, and a vulnerable one. I believe a vulnerable community can be harmed in real ways by certain expressions of criticism, and therefore a higher standard of mindfulness is appropriate in questions of censorship and acceptability.
The main thrust of the protest was, however, over the depiction of a sacred space defiled. This is a cultural gap that I’m uncomfortable crossing – how can I say ‘it’s just a place’? The Koran is viewed very differently to the Bible, such that my culture has no real equivalent to the Koran as a sacred text/object; and I gather the same principle is at work here. The Gurdwara is not a Church, or a Synagogue, or the like; it is something special in a way my culture does not comprehend, and setting an act of defilement there is deeply offensive to those who treasure the sacredness of the space.
(The nearest my own cultural background comes are such artworks as the Piss Christ and Virgin in a Condom – both degradations of Christian iconography.)
A further complication – the play was written by a Sikh woman. A minority group within a minority group – and the question arises, who owns the sacredness of the Gurdwara? In supporting the Sikh minority, are we silencing the voice of dissent within that minority?
And should it matter who wrote it? In real terms, it obviously does, but as a matter of principle, should it matter?
(Note – We are not, in this case, talking about a decision by a government. Here, a private theatre company decided to end its run of the controversial play in response to large, near-riot protests. As a practical decision, this was a fair decision; the question does arise as to whether the government should have taken a stand and provided enough police presence to guarantee the safety of those involved. Such a stand could be politically costly in a number of ways and I find it hard to condemn the government for not taking it, even if it may have been the most principled response.)
Ultimately, in Bezhti, I believe the play should have been given protection and support to carry on, although as noted above I can forgive the government for steering clear of the whole thing. It may be that my culture cannot comprehend the sacred space of the Gurdwara, but that doesn’t mean we must defer to such a principle when there is evidence of dissent – if a Sikh woman thinks the sacred space can be defiled, then clearly there is more going on than the Sikh elders we have heard would like us to believe. As long as the play itself is not injurious to the good of this minority community, and few have suggested that it is, then I cannot support a call for its suppression.
But this position may shift as I think about it some more. This is nothing if not complicated. It fascinates me, as well, because it encapsulates and dramatises some of the everyday concerns that we will be dealing with more and more as globalisation and social tolerance creates an increasingly multicultural world around us.
Even though we can’t do terribly much about such situations, little more than writing a letter or two (which is actually quite an influential thing to do in almost all such cases), it is useful for us to try and think these things through. By wrestling with these issues we better understand the difficulties that trouble the entire project of society, and that can only make us wiser and more responsible members of that society.
Peace to you all. Cheers to anyone who read this far…
The Prince Harry/Nazi thing is utterly incomprehensible to me. I haven’t read an article, but who cares?
At Te Papa, there is a display about why it is offensive to use Maori culture and iconography on nick-nacks – sacred places on teatowels, Toby jugs in the shape of Maori elders. I think I agree that this is a different issue than “Piss Christ” – in that case, the artist is relying on the power of the underlying image to make the point. Putting a crappy two-colour image of someone’s pa to show “quaint natives and their savage folkways” seems like it’s denying that the image has any power to coopt.
I’m not sure I’m being particularly clear. The first seems like an active engagement, the second is more like an unconscious patronizing attitude.
I’m not sure that I agree that people shouldn’t be allowed to make, say, Te Rauparaha bobble-heads, or even “generic Maori chieftain” bobble-heads; but it’s certainly true that a “Buddy Jesus” would probably be saying something different to a similar doll of a Maori warrior.
How does “Bro Town” fit into all this? I don’t know, I haven’t finished thinking about this stuff. 🙂
Back in my political youth I was involved in a debate about censorship with Women Against Pornography. Actually, I agreed with them that a lot of pornography was pretty offensive, sexist and degrading to women… although some is also degrading to men. Also the whole “objectification” thing… but popular culture does a pretty good job of that anyway. (And Morgue has quite cheerfully turned himself into a nice arse in a pair of tight jeans and who’s going to complain about that :-)). But the point of this woffle is that if you have censorship, and all societies inevitibly have some, someone is making decisions about what to censor…
Now I probably wouldn’t want to censor mainstream pornography, cos I think that’d just force it underground, and teenage boys buying their porn on the black market could be exposed to a whole lot worse than Penthouse, Playboy and page 3 of The Sun. Me, I’d want to censor fascists and racists and homophobes and other bigots and religious extremists of all creeds (and no Matt, I don’t mean you… I mean people who want to kill me or force me to behave in ways I don’t agree with or remove my rights). Someone else might want to censor socialists or greenies or scientists. Someone else might be censor me.
I guess what I am saying is that I’d find it hard to argue for censorship generally (snuff movies, child porn etc would be exceptions, but the making and distribution of such media is illegal in NZ anyway).
But I’m not sure whether an organisation (even a govt organisation or a city council) deciding not to allow an event to occur in premises it owns is censorship…
A few comments.
First, the underlying principle here is the inadequacy of post modern thinking to deal with moral issues. If there are no real standards then there can be no real censure of objectionable things. Or at least no consistent censure of them.
I am playing Rome Total War. In that the female family members are married off at 13. This is an accurate depiction of the society as it was. But if it happened now people would call it child abuse. So who’s right, us or the romans.
As a clearer example you and Karen have stated that child porn is objectionable. Why? What basis do you have for that statement? What standard do you apply here? Now I am not getting at you two in particular it’s just that in the post modern culture we have there *is* no standard with which we can validly censure such things as child porn, female circumcision, genocide, war crimes etc. The fact that we do censure such things can possibly be taken as evidence that there is some kind of moral law at work in the world but that’s a different argument.
Second. Why is it okay to offend Christians but no okay to offend Sikhs. This is at least implied in your post Morgue (and in some of the comments). In point of fact Christians are a minority group in both the UK and NZ. In NZ less than 10% of the population could would consider themselves Christian (and this is based on the lack criteria of going to church once and month and agreeing with Christian morals). Some put the number of actual christians (ie ones whose lives are changed by what they believe) as more like 3%
How is that nor a minority. And Christian bashing has been going on for millenia (ever since it started pretty much). So why is this valid: “I believe a vulnerable community can be harmed in real ways by certain expressions of criticism, and therefore a higher standard of mindfulness is appropriate in questions of censorship and acceptability.”?
Is it because there was a time when England was nominally Christian (and I say nominally because it has never been a totally Christian nation – there has never really been a totally christian nation, Christianity doesn’t work that way)?
Or is it because most of the christians you know are culturally similar to you therefore you think you understand them? Is it (and I say this to use hyperbole to show the point, not because I think it’s true) the christians you know are the same colour as you?
I dunno, but that kind of double standard (we should be sensitive to Sikhs {or any other minority group) whilst being culturally insensitive to Christians is rife. I can give hundreds of examples. Like Muslim kids being allowed to pray in American schools but Christian being suspended for praying quietly *to themselves*.
As another example, again in America a woman was sued 8000 dollars for advertising for a Christian handyman. Can you imagine the incensed outcry by civil liberties groups if a Sikh has been sued for advertising for a Sikh handyman. Well, the suing wouldn’t happen in the first place.
I am used to this double standard and have encountered it most days in my life as Christian in New Zealand. But that doesn’t make it right. It *is* a double standard and should be expressed as such.
The funny thing is that it’s a double standard predicted by Jesus himself “The world will hate them [his followers]”. But that stil doesn’t stop it being a double strandard.
So, as a part of an oppressed minority, I’d appreciate the same: “higher standard of mindfulness is appropriate in questions of censorship and acceptability.”
Not that I think I’ll get it. Okay, I will from you morgue. But is that because you know me or because you apply the same standards to all minorities (including Christian ones)?
I know text is a poor medium for communication. If you could see me you’d know that I am not upset, that I am not venting, just that I am asking earnest rhetorical questions to try to make a point.
I pretty much completely agree with Matt. I don’t have the experience of being Christian in New Zealand, and see just how much the country is Western (and therefore to a substantial degree Christian in underlying values – I’m thinking in comparison to, say, Thailand or India here). I am happy to take Matt’s word that there is a large difference between the background influences of Christianity on the West and actual Christian beliefs and practices.
I think the lack of objective moral guidelines is a real issue, but I’m not convinced it isn’t able to be overcome in a secular and substantially relativist way. Societies are not finished things; the vices of yesterday are the virtues of today, and needing to have conversations about what is right and wrong is not a sign of failure but part of continuing to discover how to live in the world.
That said, there would be considerably less suffering in the world if people really lived according to the teachings of Christ, or Buddha, or the tenets and teachings of countless religions.
Er, end ramble.
Jamie wrote: “but I’m not convinced it isn’t able to be overcome in a secular and substantially relativist way.”
I am not convinced that they can be solved this way. But, I don’t think any human agency could ever properly implement an absolutist set of morals, look at the past evils of the church, and the current evils of some of the harsher regimes in this world (i.e. the Taliban).
I think this is the revolutionary message of Jesus. I have just been reading the gospel of Mark, great stuff, very soiothing for me because if the disciples were half as slow at learning as he presents them then there’s hope yet for me.
But I digress. See in his time religious morality was all about appreances, all about how you lived in society, all about what you do, how you live. And, to be honest, I don’t think much has changed, and, from a secular/relativist point of view, this is all morality ever can be.
But Jesus preached that the Kingdom of Heaven is *in* us. Our morality is not about what we do but who we *are*. We are called to the absolute highest standard (“Be perfect as your Father in heaven is perfect”). Which by itself is pretty gulp worthy (yeah, like *I* can attain perfection).
But it’s coupled with infinite grace. The road to perfect (the end of which won’t be reached in this short sprint on some rock in space) is ardous and involves falling down a lot. But, the whole point is, that while we strive to attain perfection and fail (miserably in my case) we are slowly transformed from the inside out. We truely are slowly transformed into Christlikeness (see 2 Corintihans 2:18).
So I don’t advocate Christian morality for all. Because without God’s help it’s too hard (one of the proverbs says “A righteous man falls seven times and still gets up, but the wicked are brought down by calamity” – the rigtheous are those helped by God to get up again because they have faith that he’ll help them get up again, the “wicked” try to do it all themselves and so are overcome). So I won’t force my morality on others because you can legistalte inward transformation.
But I will still beleive there is an absolute moral standard and I will still stand agains violations of it. Simply because that is a part of *my* calling to be more like Him. I could never force my values on others, ut that doesn’t mean I don;t think others are subject to them. It’s just that it’s not my place to judge others or anything like that. It’s my place to love others regardless of whether they try to live up to God’s standard or not.
Hmmm…I dunno that I am making much sense.
Basically wihtiout the world being transformed form the inside out by a loving and just God, people will always fail to meet his standards. So I don’t beleive that a secular/relativist morality can *ever* solve the worlds problems, or even come faintly close.
But that doesn’t mean it’s not worth pursuing. And Jamie to totally right in saying: “Societies are not finished things; the vices of yesterday are the virtues of today, and needing to have conversations about what is right and wrong is not a sign of failure but part of continuing to discover how to live in the world.”
Now I’ll end my ramble…
Thank you, Matt – what you said forces me to clarify how I see this working, and what I previously wrote was unclear (not to say misleading) on the point. I believe that there is a basis for a common (I won’t say absolute) morality simply in how human beings are made. For example, people who are happy/content (I mean that in a more profound sense than is perhaps usual) do not intentionally attack others, or steal, or what have you. Whether this is from a conscious sense of morality or just how we work is less of an issue to me than that this seems to be true.
This allows for a society to not hold, collectively, to an absolute morality, because it can (not that it necessarily will, mind you) discover this native morality through whatever means a society develops its culture. That’s only going to work well, I think, when enough people have glimpsed this morality.
Urk, I also don’t feel like I’m explaining myself well.
Note also that having a society adopt a moral standard, of whatever sort, is of consequence only to the extent that it aids in individuals having an inner transformation. Whether this is a matter of God, or the Eightfold Path, or something else isn’t my concern.
Hey Morgue, you haven’t written that reply you promised me earlier!