October 5, 2020
Censorship of Thought and How to Avoid It
Not all limitations in expression are censorship. Think of an academic essay where – except quoting others for specific purposes – you can’t say “lol” or “whazzup”. But censorship is all about limitations in writing and expressing. Censorship of thought, in particular, is an especially insidious process – and the ultimate goal of censorship.
Censorship of thought essentially refers to self-censorship – I will use the terms interchangeably in this post. A system or process that manages to censor thought has been so effective in “plain vanilla” censorship, that people – having become conditioned – no longer bother writing or expressing what they think would be anyway censored.
Therefore, censorship – like using euphemisms, which are also a form of censorship – is ultimately about thought control. Moreover, exactly like euphemisms, self-censorship is achieved with subtlety, sophistication, and ambiguity.
That’s precisely what makes it so dangerous. Like unintended misinformation, self-censorship can creep into your writing without even your noticing it.
Self-censorship is about teaching someone to stand there even when the wall is removed
How Censorship of Thought Creeps In
I mentioned above that self-censorship, censorship of thought, is the result (and the ultimate goal) of successful “plain vanilla” censorship. The process follows a trajectory not unlike this one:
- Writer: “John was furious. ‘You fucking idiot!’ he screamed.”
- Censor: “John was furious. ‘You
fuckingidiot!’ he screamed.” - Writer [trying again]: “John was furious. ‘You goddamn idiot!’ he screamed.”
- Censor: “John was furious. ‘You
goddamnidiot!’ he screamed.” - Writer [eventually]: “John was furious. ‘You idiot!’ he screamed.”
This is a very simple example, just to display how the process unfolds. Moreover, it’s an example predicated on using what some would call “foul language” – though obviously George Carlin has put it in much better terms.
The real game starts with concepts.
Self-Censorship Examples
Censorship on language, as we saw before, is relatively straightforward. But this is just practice for the censorship authority. The real deal is concepts.
Imagine a writer in the era of the Red Scare – which never went away, really. Obviously they would never be able to say “Let’s talk about communism, because most people don’t know what it is. Once they do, they might feel more positive about it”.
But could they write “Let’s talk about communism, because most people don’t know what it is”?
An unsophisticated censor might simply warn them not to talk about communism – not unlike the example on “foul language” we saw earlier. But why do that, when you can actually alter the thought patterns of the writer?
What if a more sophisticated censor altered a text this way (strike-through means deleted by censor, bold means added by censor):
Let’s talk about communism, because most people don’t know what it is. Once they do, they might feel more positive different about it. Communism isn’t just about extravagant displays of power and military parades. It’s not even about a system of government or economic planning. First and foremost, communism is an ideological system of thought, predicated on equality.
Subsequent text would similarly have to be altered, but in the end you would have a text talking about communism and yet not quite meaning what the author intended. The author wouldn’t be too pleased, but knowing the alternative, they might go along with it.
Do that enough times, and you have – as a system and authority – taught the writer how to write the way you want them to.
The Role of Social Media in Censorship of Thought
It goes without saying that the process is much longer and more complex, going well beyond the scope of this post – that only displays a rather simple aspect of its methodology.
Just go anywhere online and notice your own behavior patterns. If you’re on Facebook or Twitter – I’m neither on Facebook nor on Twitter – count how many times you revise something before you post it, trying not to i) offend anyone; ii) trigger the platform’s censoring algorithms.
In my post on how to use colors in literature, I mention how one of my favorite examples of using colors in literature is from Pamela Zoline’s “The Heat Death of the Universe”, referring to a land that, like California is “Cunt Pink and Avocado Green”.
Would you write that on Twitter, or would you self-censor yourself – and butcher Zoline’s text – with something like “C**t Pink and Avocado Green”?
If we’re reluctant even to use words, imagine how we behave with concepts.
What Can Be Done
If you’re waiting from society to self-regulate itself, you’ll be disappointed. Democracies always fail, because they’re predicated on popularity – which leads to avoiding controversy and topics that might offend.
Expecting corporations such as Facebook or Twitter to allow freedom of expression must, then, be twice as pointless.
The only thing you can control is your own behavior.
Pay attention to your writing patterns. Do you express yourself freely, or do you try to please and not offend others? Do you challenge your own preconceptions – trying to escape your own ignorance – or are you happy with echo chambers, where pleasing views are simply regurgitated?
It goes without saying that you can’t avoid censorship in places like Facebook or Twitter. Either you stay (and apply censorship of thought; self-censorship) or you leave.
I did the latter.
5 Comments
Comments are closed for posts older than 90 days
What a slap to the face!
I’ve speculated a bit on how fame (popularity) works as a power – it seems to be so more nowadays than ever before. Worse than I thought: it’s violent, harmful, and relies on a conceptual net that entangles most of us.
As I’ve said in my post on democracies that fail, a system operating on popular idiocy assures that only idiocy can be popular. The problem with popularity is that it seems to precisely shun critical thinking and avoid controversial topics. This leads to a condition where one operative element (popularity) is in conflict with another operative element (criticism).
Isn’t it funny how so many beautiful concepts became dirty words in Capitalist-country-languages?
Communism stands for ‘Community’
Socialism stand for ‘Society’
Liberalism stands for ‘Liberty’
‘Tree-huggers’ stand for love of trees
‘bleeding-hearts’ stands for compassion and empathy
Can you think of a few more?
I’ve seen “intelligentsia” used derogatorily, which isn’t a surprise, really. Intelligence, critical thinking, and education are snubbed in favor of mediocrity and mindlessness.
I have always been proud of being an ‘egg-head’! 😉