Tuesday, 6 July 2010

What's Worth Censoring in Children's Literature? Beyond Misdirected Piety

Some readers of this blog may be aware that I write a blog on children's language and literacy learning - 'Literacy, Families & Learning'. I also have a long-term interest in children's literature and have published widely in these areas. I have been seeking for many years to reconcile good secular scholarship, my theology and writing on Christian education. This is challenging. I don't always agree with the things I see written by Christians in the field of education. It seems far too easy to use a shallow form of piety or offer up appropriate theological language to dismiss ideas in the field of education without thinking biblically about the myriad decisions we make daily as teachers and parents. As I have shared in previous posts on censorship (here) and Tedd Tripp's views on physical punishment (here), I'm puzzled at times by the views of some of my fellow Christians hold when commenting on education. One area of ongoing bafflement, which I suspect is symptomatic of different biblical application, is the children's books that are banned or challenged by parents.  While Christians aren't the only people to object to some children's books, many have questioned some of my favourite books, including 'Where the Wild Things Are', 'Bridge to Terabithia' and 'The Adventures of Tom Sawyer'. Lists of frequently challenged children's books (here) contain a number of books that I value highly, or would use, as well as some that I wouldn't want my children to read.

It is clear that in the last twenty years authors have pushed the boundaries of appropriateness for the child reader. This alone should be reason enough for any Christian parent to be very careful about the things that their children read, and even the books that might be set for study at school. But while many parents complained when Susan Patron's book 'The Higher Power of Lucky' was published in 2006 with the word 'scrotum' on the first page, few seem to complain about books that promote other topics like nationalism, militarism or versions of humanism that many Christians. Nor do some Christian parents question the view of the world promoted in many TV teen dramas, videos, musical lyrics, teen magazines etc.

Nicholas Wolterstorff, Professor of Philosophy at Yale University, offers some wisdom on this topic in 'Educating for Life' (p. 43):
There is rampant in our Reformed community, as I guess there is in most Christian communities, the belief that the great dangers in literature are obscenity and profanity. Thus, we wage strong campaigns to keep the eyes and ears of our children from "filth" as we call it. We have not the slightest compunction in allowing our children to read paeans of praise to nationalism, to financial success, to humanism, to militarism - just provided they are "clean"...What the Christian school absolutely must do is educate its constituency to these issues. It must teach them to be discerning as to the message of literary works. And with them - not against them - it must face up to the issue as to wherein lie the really serious threats to the moral and religious life of young children, and adults as well.
I hope that Christian readers of this blog do not misunderstand what I am saying. I am not against censorship and in fact managed to ban a number of televisions shows, teen magazines and the odd book when my children were growing up, but much more of my time was spent talking to them about the things they read, viewed, listened to etc.  And if I had an objection (as I did have to Dolly magazine), why did I hold it. In the process, I was helping them to apply their growing understanding of the purposes for which God had made them and his expectations for the life that he had given them. This is surely one of the most fundamental challenges for parents and Christian teachers, and is one of the true 'basics' in Christian education and parenting.

7 comments:

Timaahy said...

Hi Trevor,

Two questions...

Firstly, why should Christian parents have compunctions, slight or otherwise, about exposing Christian children to humanism?

Secondly, do you think it appropriate for Christian parents to censor information on other religions, and atheism?

Tim

Trevor Cairney said...

Hi Tim,

I was referring to secular humanism. Secular humanists believe that humans are basically good and do not need God. I wasn't suggesting that they should not be exposed to this teaching; they can't escape it. My post was suggesting pretty much the opposite of what I suspect that you assume that I mean. No, I wouldn't want to censor information on other religions and atheism.

I was writing mainly to Christians in the post, challenging them not to become focussed on narrow issues when judging the worth of books that children might read

Cheers,

Trevor

Timaahy said...

Trevor,

You said in your post that "while many parents complained when Susan Patron's book...was published...with the word 'scrotum' on the first page, few seem to complain about books that promote other topics like... humanism...".

This wording does give the impression that you think Christian parents should complain about books that promote humanism. If that is not the case, are you able to clarify your statement?

Tim

Trevor Cairney said...

Hi Tim,

I'm not sure how I can make my original post much clearer. Here is the paragraph that refers to this:

"But while many parents complained when Susan Patron's book 'The Higher Power of Lucky' was published in 2006 with the word 'scrotum' on the first page, few seem to complain about books that promote other topics like nationalism, militarism or versions of humanism that many Christians. Nor do some Christian parents question the view of the world promoted in many TV teen dramas, videos, musical lyrics, teen magazines etc."

My post was never intended to say that censorship is wrong, just that parents need to think carefully about the things they warn their children about or censor. I rarely censored books as a parent but when I did raise issues with my children they were about more substantial matters. I would explain what 'scrotum' meant not ban it. However, I banned 'Dolly' in our house because I thought that it was filling my daughters minds with all manner of inappropriate ideas concerning the things that matter in life and offering limited views of what it means to be a woman, how relationships are formed, what are the things that contribute to self worth. There are plenty of non-Christians who would have agreed with me.

You keep coming back to humanism. If a book was clearly riddled with a view of the world that was based on humanism, then in the process of reading it and discussing it, I'd warn them about the dangers of humanist thinking that assumes people are basically good and can solve all the world's problems if we just draw on the inner good. I certainly wouldn't ban it, but I'd critique it.

That's my point.

Trevor

Timaahy said...

Trevor,

Yes, I know that's your point! I'm trying to find out what it is about humanism that you'd critique, and why (especially in light of the definitions of humanism that you provided).

Tim

Trevor Cairney said...

Hi Tim,

My post wasn't an attack on humanism (or even secular humanism) or humanists. As an aside, I'm curious to know why you're not as interested in what I might be seen as objectionable at times about militarism or nationalism, which the Wolterstorff quote also mentioned.

I don't have time to respond in detail, but my point was that while making a fuss over the word 'scrotum' parents might not notice something more significant in some of the things their children read - perhaps the most serious being that God is not seen as having a place in the worldview of most secular humanists.

While there are things that are taught by humanists (of varied persuasions) that are not inconsistent with the Bible, and hence some Christians argue that we need to develop a form of Christian Humanism, the worldview that sometimes shapes the books and magazines that children read offer a form of humanism that is anti-God (or at least has no place for God). Humans are not seen as created by God in his image to live according to his purposes. They are seen as their own masters.

Humanism is a democratic and ethical world view that seeks to affirm that human beings have the right and responsibility to give meaning and shape to their own lives. While on the surface this seems hard to argue against, most humanists believe that this can be done without regard for God. Clearly, as a Christian I would have problems with any philosophy that places man in charge of his own destiny. The Bible (as you know) teaches that a life devoted to God, to whom we can be reconciled through Christ, is how ultimate fulfilment can be obtained. I was suggesting that discussing fundamental issues such as these is what matters for parents, not the odd word that they find objectionable.

Maybe I'll post on this topic in detail at some future time.

Regards,

Trevor

Timaahy said...

Trevor,

Thanks for responding... that is exactly what I wanted to know. I'll wait until you write a post on humanism before responding further.

I'm not "interested in what [you] might [see] as objectionable ... about militarism or nationalism" for the simple reason that I find those objectionable as well! Indeed, my interest in your objections to humanism was piqued precisly because I find them objectionable.

Tim