Musing: books - Can books cause harm?
The site goodreads is now blocked in Iran. Let's get this straight before we begin: I don't think that's a good thing. I don't think that's right. If I could wave a magic wand and fix the world, me being me, I'm afraid that might be one of the first things I'd fix right now, just because it would spring to mind. The Iranian government are seeking to prevent discussion, specifically of books -- although the goodreads site is a great forum for all kinds of discussion, because of the kind of people that populate it and the kind of space it is. That's wrong. It isn't going to stop people discussing books or whatever it is that the Iranian government don't want discussed, anyway, not if those people passionately want that discussion. But it's throwing a spanner in the works, disrupting existing conversations, blocking people from finding other people who share their opinions or who might revolutionise their opinions.
I am absolutely opposed to the fact that goodreads is blocked in Iran. However, this post is not directly about that. The post is about something an Iranian member and the goodreads staff both asserted:
One Iranian Goodreads member wrote to us and confirmed the news: "your site is recently been filtered by our horrible govrnmt. pls help us! spread it...books make no harm."
We couldn't agree more. Books make no harm.
I disagree. Books can make harm, just as they can make good. If they can't do the one, I don't believe they can do the other, either -- if they're a force for good, they can also be a force for bad. I say this while loving books -- everyone on this journal's flist probably realises that -- and ranking reading as one of the most important things I do every day, right up there with "waking up", "eating" and "breathing". I say this while thinking that books are my best friends. So please, please, don't make the assumption that I'm saying books are universally a bad thing, or anything like that.
It's true that books, of their own accord, can do no physical harm. Unless someone picks one up and uses it as a club, or something of the kind, books cannot do physical harm. That should be self-evident, really, but I'm trying to make it absolutely clear what I mean by "harm".
It's also true that books can't force themselves on you. If you don't want to read a book, you are generally able to put it down. There are some exceptions I'm going to discard, at least for now, e.g. in a school situation, or in some kind of captive situation. Books, sitting on their shelves, unread, cannot do harm.
Books do not sit on their shelves unread.
There are various ways I think books can do harm, which for ease I'm going to divide into three groups: books that push an agenda, books that people use to push an agenda, and books that shape you. All books, I think, fall into one of these categories, and some fall into more than that.
When I think of books that push an agenda, I think first of Mein Kampf. I've never read it, but it's the book Adolf Hitler wrote, full of his own ideas and his political ideology. That book is poisonous, from my point of view. The distinction is difficult, though, because from Hitler's point of view this book didn't cause harm at all, at least not to anyone who mattered. Still, I think it's fair to say that this kind of book can do harm, by poisoning other people, by spreading dangerous ideas.
When I think of books that people use to push an agenda, the first thing I think of is The Bible. Personally, I think the book has truths and important morals in it, and if nothing else the suffering of Christ is a beautiful story. There are people who believe in this book blindly, who believe that every word should be adhered to -- and there are people who twist the words to make their own meanings, and sometimes that means justifying something. Justifying war, or torture, or beating up a poor kid 'cause he's gay. The Qur'an is used in this way, too. A lot of holy books are subject to this. The books do harm here by lending weight to people and ideas that are unjust. Again, it's strongly a matter of perspective, because it depends whether you subscribe to the ideas of the book or not -- yet I think my point remains: this kind of book can do harm because it can be used to justify whatever the user can twist it into justifying.
The thing I probably have the most to say about is the way books shape people. In a way, that's the same thing as the first category, I know. But this is quieter, this is harder to grasp. It's harder to realise it's happening. Every book you read -- every text you read, and I say text because newspapers are texts, adverts are texts, movies are texts... -- impacts upon you. There are norms in fiction, in the texts that surround us every day. These norms are changing now, slowly, but it's a slow change. These norms are heteronormativity, white dominance, male dominance, a certain image of gender, various stereotypes of class or any other characteristic you can think of... These norms are about skin colour and gender and culture and religion and ability vs. disability and everything. Think about, for example, the representation of families in books. "Johnny had a normal family," maybe. What does normal mean, in that context? He has a mother. He has a father. They're probably of the same race. They're probably white. He may have siblings. The family are together. The father probably has a good salary. In this day and age, the mother probably works too, but she probably still picks the kids up from school, probably puts the washing on.
The impact of this is most obvious upon children, who are the least likely to realise this kind of thing is happening because they have less experience of the world. I grew up reading about white kids in Britain who were probably upper middle class (as I was), whose mother stayed home and cooked, cleaned, etc. None of them were disabled in any way. They were cisgendered and heterosexual. Occasionally there would be a tomboy, a "boyish girl", who was a bit better than a girl but not as good as a boy.
Books can shape people, completely unconsciously, to see the world in a way that isn't at all realistic. I think that is a way that books do very great harm, because not only do people not understand diversity, but also it runs the risk that they won't find the things they need in fiction. As a teenager, I could've done with some books in which people dealt with their sexuality. I wish I had that kind of book to give to my younger sister. The books weren't there for me, and if they're there for my sister then they're not easy for her to access and get hold of. They don't sit on the shelf beside the books with heterosexuals in them, and when they do, it's certainly not in equal numbers. Not yet -- maybe someday.
The other aspect of this is that this shaping can be controlled, deliberately. On a small-scale, by a parent. On a larger scale, by a government. This might be in the best faith -- for example, a parent who believes homosexuality is completely wrong and means you'll go to hell. Then they would monitor the child's reading, not allowing them to read anything gay-positive, and push them towards books about how wonderful marriage between a man and a woman is, and gradually in this way teach a child that sex before marriage is wrong, that marriage is only between a man and a woman, and thus that homosexuality is wrong. And thus, perhaps, that homosexual people are inferior, are wrong, should be punished or corrected, and pulled back into line. Or maybe that child is gay, and grows up without any idea that he or she is not alone, with no idea that it's okay to be what they are.
One answer to all of this that I've got time and again is that books don't force you to do anything, it's people who make the decisions. Books can't cause harm, it's people who cause harm. Books don't act, people do.
My answer to that is that people write books. Books don't appear on their own. People write books, people publish books, people distribute books. Books are the direct result of people's actions -- books are people's actions. To a certain extent, what I've been talking about isn't the "fault" of books but that of the people who write them, use them or even those who read them, I'll agree. But once a book is written and it goes out into the world, it's on its own. The author doesn't sit on the shoulder of the reader and tell them what to think, how to interpret what's on the page. Whatever's on the page does that. And often, there is no intent on the part of the author or the publishers or the distributors to pass on their opinions -- it's just done, as a result of what books are and how they're published and distributed.
Books can be weapons. Saying that books make no harm is like saying that a knife makes no harm, or a gun makes no harm. Sure, they don't -- sitting unused on a shelf. But that's not where books, knives and guns always sit, is it?
I am absolutely opposed to the fact that goodreads is blocked in Iran. However, this post is not directly about that. The post is about something an Iranian member and the goodreads staff both asserted:
One Iranian Goodreads member wrote to us and confirmed the news: "your site is recently been filtered by our horrible govrnmt. pls help us! spread it...books make no harm."
We couldn't agree more. Books make no harm.
I disagree. Books can make harm, just as they can make good. If they can't do the one, I don't believe they can do the other, either -- if they're a force for good, they can also be a force for bad. I say this while loving books -- everyone on this journal's flist probably realises that -- and ranking reading as one of the most important things I do every day, right up there with "waking up", "eating" and "breathing". I say this while thinking that books are my best friends. So please, please, don't make the assumption that I'm saying books are universally a bad thing, or anything like that.
It's true that books, of their own accord, can do no physical harm. Unless someone picks one up and uses it as a club, or something of the kind, books cannot do physical harm. That should be self-evident, really, but I'm trying to make it absolutely clear what I mean by "harm".
It's also true that books can't force themselves on you. If you don't want to read a book, you are generally able to put it down. There are some exceptions I'm going to discard, at least for now, e.g. in a school situation, or in some kind of captive situation. Books, sitting on their shelves, unread, cannot do harm.
Books do not sit on their shelves unread.
There are various ways I think books can do harm, which for ease I'm going to divide into three groups: books that push an agenda, books that people use to push an agenda, and books that shape you. All books, I think, fall into one of these categories, and some fall into more than that.
When I think of books that push an agenda, I think first of Mein Kampf. I've never read it, but it's the book Adolf Hitler wrote, full of his own ideas and his political ideology. That book is poisonous, from my point of view. The distinction is difficult, though, because from Hitler's point of view this book didn't cause harm at all, at least not to anyone who mattered. Still, I think it's fair to say that this kind of book can do harm, by poisoning other people, by spreading dangerous ideas.
When I think of books that people use to push an agenda, the first thing I think of is The Bible. Personally, I think the book has truths and important morals in it, and if nothing else the suffering of Christ is a beautiful story. There are people who believe in this book blindly, who believe that every word should be adhered to -- and there are people who twist the words to make their own meanings, and sometimes that means justifying something. Justifying war, or torture, or beating up a poor kid 'cause he's gay. The Qur'an is used in this way, too. A lot of holy books are subject to this. The books do harm here by lending weight to people and ideas that are unjust. Again, it's strongly a matter of perspective, because it depends whether you subscribe to the ideas of the book or not -- yet I think my point remains: this kind of book can do harm because it can be used to justify whatever the user can twist it into justifying.
The thing I probably have the most to say about is the way books shape people. In a way, that's the same thing as the first category, I know. But this is quieter, this is harder to grasp. It's harder to realise it's happening. Every book you read -- every text you read, and I say text because newspapers are texts, adverts are texts, movies are texts... -- impacts upon you. There are norms in fiction, in the texts that surround us every day. These norms are changing now, slowly, but it's a slow change. These norms are heteronormativity, white dominance, male dominance, a certain image of gender, various stereotypes of class or any other characteristic you can think of... These norms are about skin colour and gender and culture and religion and ability vs. disability and everything. Think about, for example, the representation of families in books. "Johnny had a normal family," maybe. What does normal mean, in that context? He has a mother. He has a father. They're probably of the same race. They're probably white. He may have siblings. The family are together. The father probably has a good salary. In this day and age, the mother probably works too, but she probably still picks the kids up from school, probably puts the washing on.
The impact of this is most obvious upon children, who are the least likely to realise this kind of thing is happening because they have less experience of the world. I grew up reading about white kids in Britain who were probably upper middle class (as I was), whose mother stayed home and cooked, cleaned, etc. None of them were disabled in any way. They were cisgendered and heterosexual. Occasionally there would be a tomboy, a "boyish girl", who was a bit better than a girl but not as good as a boy.
Books can shape people, completely unconsciously, to see the world in a way that isn't at all realistic. I think that is a way that books do very great harm, because not only do people not understand diversity, but also it runs the risk that they won't find the things they need in fiction. As a teenager, I could've done with some books in which people dealt with their sexuality. I wish I had that kind of book to give to my younger sister. The books weren't there for me, and if they're there for my sister then they're not easy for her to access and get hold of. They don't sit on the shelf beside the books with heterosexuals in them, and when they do, it's certainly not in equal numbers. Not yet -- maybe someday.
The other aspect of this is that this shaping can be controlled, deliberately. On a small-scale, by a parent. On a larger scale, by a government. This might be in the best faith -- for example, a parent who believes homosexuality is completely wrong and means you'll go to hell. Then they would monitor the child's reading, not allowing them to read anything gay-positive, and push them towards books about how wonderful marriage between a man and a woman is, and gradually in this way teach a child that sex before marriage is wrong, that marriage is only between a man and a woman, and thus that homosexuality is wrong. And thus, perhaps, that homosexual people are inferior, are wrong, should be punished or corrected, and pulled back into line. Or maybe that child is gay, and grows up without any idea that he or she is not alone, with no idea that it's okay to be what they are.
One answer to all of this that I've got time and again is that books don't force you to do anything, it's people who make the decisions. Books can't cause harm, it's people who cause harm. Books don't act, people do.
My answer to that is that people write books. Books don't appear on their own. People write books, people publish books, people distribute books. Books are the direct result of people's actions -- books are people's actions. To a certain extent, what I've been talking about isn't the "fault" of books but that of the people who write them, use them or even those who read them, I'll agree. But once a book is written and it goes out into the world, it's on its own. The author doesn't sit on the shoulder of the reader and tell them what to think, how to interpret what's on the page. Whatever's on the page does that. And often, there is no intent on the part of the author or the publishers or the distributors to pass on their opinions -- it's just done, as a result of what books are and how they're published and distributed.
Books can be weapons. Saying that books make no harm is like saying that a knife makes no harm, or a gun makes no harm. Sure, they don't -- sitting unused on a shelf. But that's not where books, knives and guns always sit, is it?