This is yet another blog post for a target audience who will likely never see it, but I want to talk about it, so oh well.
I cannot understand the people who think that fiction needs to be 'moral' or 'pure' or 'good.' Fiction is a tool, an outlet, it is a safe, non-existent (as in, does not exist in a physical capacity) way to explore dangerous or uncomfortable things. Not every piece of media is made specifically for you, but in the culture we (USAmericans) live in we are taught both explicitly and implicitly that everything we see, everything we can touch, is for us. (including other's bodies, but that is a separate conversation)
The Culture of Capitalism strives to ensnare as many people as possible into itself, one of the ways it does this is through indoctrination through mass media. In order for this to work, the mass media has to appeal to as many people as possible, which means that the mass media has to always account for the lowest common denominator. This means the smallest of the largest factions have to be appealed to. The main two factions in the US right now that media has to appeal to is the Liberals and the Conservatives. Now, this is relatively easy because the differences are so miniscule. But this also means that anything in mass media that would alienate either of those factions (or large sub-factions) must be removed so as to appeal to the widest audience possible.
However, notably, there are several factions that are ignored completely, usually accompanied by the excuse "there aren't enough of them to make appealing to them profitable," because appealing to those groups would alienate a larger part of their audience. The groups most commonly affected by this are physically disabled people, intersex people, and queer people. (although to a decreasing degree, as queerness becomes more acceptable in the mainstream) Mass media either disregards these factions entirely, refusing to acknowledge their existence within media, displays them in dehumanizing ways, or tries to make it palatable to the 'average' viewer by diluting it as much as possible while still being able to claim inclusivity. (which is also, usually, dehumanizing)
A driving force behind this thinking are the characteristics of white supremacy that prevail in USAmerican society. The main one that always comes to mind for me is "Right to Comfort," meaning "the belief that those with power have a right to psychological and emotional comfort" or, to put it more simply "this thing makes me uncomfortable, therefore it should not exist." Though there are certainly others that come into play, such as:
Fear of Open Conflict - people in power try to ignore or run from conflict, when someone raises an issue, they are then blamed for 'creating' said issue, raising difficult issues is considered 'impolite' or 'rude'(with a cultural importance placed on politeness)
Either/Or Thinking - things are either good or bad, right or wrong, with us or against us, oversimplifying complex things, increasing sense of urgency to pick one or the other without considering other possibilities
Quantity over Quality - measurable things are most valued, little value is given to the process, and a discomfort with emotion and feelings
Sense of Urgency - continued sense of little time that undermines inclusively and/or democratic and thoughtful decision making, sacrificing potential allies in favor of quick, measurable results, which is reinforced by benefactors expecting too much for too little
Now, I intended this post to be primarily about censorship, not about the characteristics of white supremacy and the effects each one individually has on mass media. So lets talk about censorship.
Censorship, as defined by oxford dictionary, is the suppression or prohibition of any parts of books, films, news, etc. that are considered obscene, politically unacceptable, or a threat to security.
Suppression and prohibition, meaning to forcibly bring an end to, or to formally forbid something by law. Now, suppression or prohibition in and of themselves aren't particularly sinister, but when you look at what is suppressed and prohibited, we get a better picture of why these are issues. Lets take the Hays code as our first example. While the Hays code was, technically, self-imposed, and filmmakers were not required to follow it, it was almost entirely impossible to get a movie shown in theaters without a seal of approval. Looking at examples of things forbidden by the Hays code, such as "lustful kissing" or other displays of passion, nudity, homosexuality, 'mixed race' couples, obscenity, profanity, childbirth, and rape, we see consistent themes sexuality, race, and human expression being targeted with suppression and prohibition. We also see the systematic denial of the existence of rape by the prohibition of its portrayal. There is also the implication that childbirth, a natural human occurrence, is offensive to the sensibilities of the average (read, white male) viewer. If we look at the things that were heavily restricted in how they were to be portrayed, such as religion and God, which could not be ridiculed or treated with disrespect, drugs, which could not be shown in a positive light, crime, which had to always end in punishment, and could not go into detail, adultery, which had to be condemned, and could not be portrayed in a positive light, firearms, which could not be displayed in a positive way, revenge, which 'in modern times shall not be justified,' we continue to see themes of sexuality being repressed, but we also see a systematic lack of empathy and sympathy for both those affected by 'crime' and drugs, while they raise religion up on a pedestal.
The Hays code exemplifies how Right to Comfort, Either/Or Thinking, and Fear of Open Conflict affected mass media production at that time. The systemic fear of being forced to reconsider one's own beliefs and convictions, the visceral discomfort of it, had to be entirely avoided. There is also the 'fear' of alienating the viewer (thereby lowering profits) by showing things onscreen that might make viewers uncomfortable, either by challenging their beliefs, or by triggering the viewer's disgust reflex. (The things that trigger disgust are rarely dangerous or harmful, are are generally dictated by what is socially acceptable) The Right to Comfort of the white viewer was always a primary consideration. (I also acknowledge that the Hays code was partially put in place to make sure USAmerican movies were acceptable to foreign audiences that were also conservative, that does not negate my point) The Fear of Open Conflict also comes into play when you consider how people might react to their beliefs about things like sexuality, drugs, crime, mixed-race couples, ect. being portrayed in a positive way. The internal conflict of having to reconcile the societal positions on the aforementioned topics with the positive portrayals would have been too overwhelming for the average person (read, white male) in the 1930s. /sarcasm. Either/Or Thinking is represented in the way that the topics listed in the Hays code were seen as either unequivocally good (religion, nationalism), or evil (drugs, sex, crime, homosexuality, ect.) there was no room for nuance, reconsideration, or sympathy.
The results of this way of thinking are evident even today, with the way sex, drugs, and 'crime' are viewed in public spaces, let alone mass media. The dehumanization of drug users and criminals, along with POC and queer people has been systemically ingrained in our media so long it has become second nature. It is culturally and socially acceptable to dehumanize people as long as we can, at least in a circumstantial way, 'prove' their association with one of the Approved Categories of Condemnable Behaviour. Like the way queer people are being called sexual predators, because queerness is no longer an Approved Category or Condemnable Behaviour, in order to dehumanize queer people in a socially acceptable way bigots needed to associate queer people with a different Approved Category of Condemnable Behaviour, e.g. sexual predators. We can also look at the way USAmerican society views 'criminals.' Although we like to claim that we believe in "innocence until proven guilty" we don't put as much societal weight on proof as we do on vibes. If the mass media is able to convince a majority of the public that the accused is guilty, not even guilty of the crime he is supposed to have committed, but guilty of any Approved Category of Condemnable Behaviour, then the mass media can turn public opinion against the person accused, making everyone who condemns the accused complicit in the dehumanization of the accused. This also comes with the implication that is okay and socially acceptable to dehumanize certain categories of people, as long as they can be associated with one of the Approved Categories of Condemnable Behaviour, e.g. "it's okay to dehumanize criminals" or "its okay to dehumanize drug users." There is never any consideration of the circumstances that lead to Condemnable Behaviour, such as poverty, abuse, systemic racism, sexism, ect. and it is made exceedingly clear that it is socially unacceptable to be sympathetic towards alleged Perpetrators of Condemnable Behaviour, let alone confirmed Perpetrators of Condemnable Behaviour.
The labels used to describe Perpetrators of Condemnable Behaviour are seen as justification for dehumanization. If a person has been labeled a Perpetrator of Condemnable Behaviour, it is seen as socially acceptable, and in some cases socially expected, to dehumanize them. These labels and the use of them becomes a slippery slope, especially because a lot of the categories of Condemnable Behaviour are broad and unspecific, and therefore can be applied to anyone or almost anyone. These labels become convenient weapons to wield against any person or group you want to discredit and dehumanize, and there is rarely a need for concrete evidence or proof, when the court of public opinion is where the battle takes place.
It is undeniable that Puritan Christian values dominate societal norms in the US, and we see how that extends into the mass media. Lets now discuss how it affects other media, as well as perceptions of other media
Lets talk about fiction in general. Fiction is defined as literature in the form of prose that describes imaginary events and people and/or something that is invented or untrue. These characteristics make fiction an ideal vehicle for exploring themes, ideas, and actions that would otherwise be considered dangerous, obscene, or reprehensible, as well as more common themes and ideas. Since fiction, by definition, is imaginary, and, therefore, not real, it has no real world impacts, aside from the personal impact on the consumer. Fiction can make people uncomfortable, but it is a safe way of exploring uncomfortable things without them having real world effects. Yet, as we've seen above, as a society, we have been taught that anything that causes discomfort is, at best A Serious Problem, and at worst grounds for eradication.
People who engage with or create fictional materials dealing with themes of pedophilia, rape, abuse, bestiality, incest, and the like are generally seen as Dangerous and Degenerates, purely because they choose to engage with media that makes other people uncomfortable. Regardless of how the media in question handles these themes, the mere presence of them, without explicit condemnation of them, is generally perceived to be praise or approval of said themes. Now, sure, this could be chalked up to media illiteracy, but I believe it is also evidence of a deeper issue.
The idea that any media one might encounter should agree with their personal beliefs, not challenge their preconceived ideas of the world, and not ask them to sympathize with a 'condemnable' class is entirely puritanical. It is ludicrous to think that you are the target audience for every piece of media. There will be things you don't enjoy, there is a simple solution, just don't engage with it. Your dislike or distaste for a piece of media is not grounds for its eradication.
That being said, sometimes the point of the media is to cause you discomfort, to challenge you, to force you to see something differently. It is all too common for these pieces of media to be condemned, or suppressed, both by conservatives and self-proclaimed liberals. The idea that your comfort should be prioritized over other people's humanity is ridiculous, and the idea that you cannot tolerate a moment of discomfort to reconsider something says a lot about our society. If a fictional (read, not real) piece of media makes you uncomfortable because it is pointing out your bigotry, maybe take some time and space to consider why that particular issue bothers you so much, instead of campaigning for its removal from existence.
And that is what all of this really comes down to, bigotry is ingrained in USAmerican society. It is normalized and expected, even from those who claim to be liberals. Its what this country was built on, stepping on the 'others' to get just an inch higher. The fact that so many of the things that are seen as taboo in media are just things that cause white people to face the harm they've done is incredibly telling. And the fact that the media that does challenge that, that brings attention to the atrocities committed by White Europeans, is often so heavily hated, suppressed, or misunderstood is just another example of how these characteristics of white supremacy have seeped into our very bones.
Let people engage with what they want, a person's interests don't make them dangerous, their actions do. Even dangerous people don't deserve to be dehumanized. Fiction isn't real and isn't hurting anyone by existing. Acknowledging the existence of something doesn't mean you approve of it. You're allowed to dislike things, but if your grounds for disliking something are "it made me uncomfortable" maybe rethink your positions. Don't be a bigot. Do whatever you want forever. Let people write and engage with what they want. Demand better and more from major studios.
(this post was written over the course of 3 days, and may be disjointed due to this, I will not edit it, cuase I'm lazy)