Literatura in cenzura - Društvo za primerjalno književnost - ZRC SAZU

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Literature and Censorship: Who is Afraid of the Truth of Literature?260colloquium where a version of this article was first presented, I examinehow fear of the “truth” of literature can be sustained by notions such ashomophobia and heterosexism that are so deeply embedded in the discoursethat it might be hard to maintain that these phenomena are whollyconscious. Depending on how you look at it, this could possibly be evenworse.I would argue along with John Corvino that double standards in thediscourses on hetero- and homosexuality are kept firmly in place, both intheir everyday manifestations and in their academic/critical ones. Thuswith heterosexuality we are always interested in a wide range of issues,whereas with homosexuality it is all about sex; heterosexuals have relationships,homosexuals have sexual affairs; heterosexuals have lives, homosexualshave lifestyles; heterosexuals have a moral vision, homosexualshave an agenda.Censors have occasionally tried hard to erase any trace of same-sex desire,and sometimes they have literally done so. Thomas Gray’s (1716–71)correspondence from the period of his romantic attachment to HenryTuthill was selectively destroyed, and William Mason, his first editor andbiographer, erased Tuthill’s name from some of the remaining letters (MyDear Boy 98). However, more often these attempts have not been quite soblunt. Nowadays they live on chiefly in the academic and critical worlds oftextbooks, anthologies, studies, and reviews. What is more, the contemporarycensorship of same-sex desire is often difficult to prove, because mostof it happens through various forms of critical or market interventions.Furthermore, there are very thin lines between censorship on the groundsof homoeroticism, homosexuality, obscenity, pornography, paedophilia,and blasphemy. 2Graham Robb notes that much historical/personal/biographical evidencehas been destroyed and that “the standard of proof demanded ofbiographers is far stricter for homosexual than for heterosexual subjects”(137). However, when Jonathan Dollimore asks “Which is the more effectivein keeping the peace: blunt state censorship of ‘dangerous’ texts, or‘safe’ interpretations of supposedly ‘respectable’ ones”, he reminds us that“to ban a book is to guarantee its place in cultural history”, and notes that“more effective censorship arises with … benign interpretations” (95). 3He maintains that “some of the most effective censors of art have been itsmost earnest defenders” (97).However, there is another, enormously important strategy: silence. Arefusal to speak about something can be just as censorious – and perhapseven more effective – as explicit prohibitions. As regards the topic ofsame-sex desire, this is only too pertinent. How to speak about a phenom-
Andrej Zavrl:Undressing Literary History: The Censorship of Same-Sex Desireenon traditionally referred to by the Latin formula peccatum illud horribile,inter Christianos non nominandum (that horrible crime not to be named amongChristians), also known as the peccatum mutum (silent sin)? Eve KosofskySedgwick, accordingly, draws a clear parallel between the openly repressiveprojects of censorship and the dismissive knowingness based on themechanism of the open secret, which comes from “the core grammar ofDon’t ask; You shouldn’t know. It didn’t happen; it doesn’t make any difference;it didn’t mean anything; it doesn’t have interpretative consequences”(Sedgwick, Epistemology 53). The same author notes that too many academics(including liberal ones) “simply neither ask nor know.” However, theneed for dismissals does occasionally arise and Sedgwick somewhat sarcasticallysums them up in eight points:1. Passionate language of same-sex attraction was extremely common duringwhatever period is under discussion – and therefore must have been completelymeaningless. Or2. Same-sex genital relations may have been perfectly common during the periodunder discussion, but since there was no language about them, they must havebeen completely meaningless. Or3. Attitudes about homosexuality were intolerant back then, unlike now – so peopleprobably didn't do anything. Or4. Prohibitions against homosexuality didn't exist back then, unlike now – so ifpeople did anything, it was completely meaningless. Or5. The word “homosexuality” wasn't coined until 1869 – so everyone before thenwas heterosexual. (Of course, heterosexuality has always existed.) Or6. The author under discussion is certified or rumored to have had an attachmentto someone of the other sex – so their feelings about people of their own sex musthave been completely meaningless. Or (under a perhaps somewhat different ruleof admissible evidence)7. There is no actual proof of homosexuality, such as sperm taken from the bodyof another man or a nude photograph with another woman – so the author maybe assumed to have been ardently and exclusively heterosexual. Or (as a last resort)8. The author, or the author's important attachments, may very well have beenhomosexual – but it would be provincial to let so insignificant a fact make anydifference at all to our understanding of any serious project of life, writing, orthought. (52–53)Let me begin my analysis with two earlier examples of censorship-bycriticismthat show how criticism that “in its time … seemed … the heightof good judgement … obviously right and sensible” can, in a couple ofdecades, seem myopic and outdated (Dollimore 95–96). Having said that,it has to be emphasized that the circumstances of each of the exampleshave to be taken into account; after all, homosexuality was only decriminalizedin Slovenia in 1977.261
Page 1:
Literatura in cenzuraKdo se boji re
Page 5:
Marijan Dović:Literatura in cenzur
Page 9 and 10:
Marijan Dović:Literatura in cenzur
Page 11 and 12:
Totalitarna in post-totalitarnacenz
Page 13 and 14:
Marijan Dović:Totalitarna in post-
Page 16:
Literatura in cenzura: kdo se boji
Page 19 and 20:
Page 21 and 22:
Page 27 and 28:
Stephan Packard:Model tekstualnega
Page 29:
Page 33:
Page 36 and 37:
Page 38:
Page 43:
II.Kontroverze totalitarne cenzure
Page 46 and 47:
Page 48 and 49:
Page 50 and 51:
Page 52 and 53:
Page 54 and 55:
Page 56 and 57:
Page 58 and 59:
Page 60 and 61:
Page 62 and 63:
Page 64 and 65:
Page 66 and 67:
Page 68 and 69:
Page 70 and 71:
Page 72 and 73:
Page 74 and 75:
Page 76 and 77:
Page 78 and 79:
Page 81 and 82:
Cenzura in dramske strategijev jugo
Page 83 and 84:
Aleksandra Jovićević: Cenzura in
Page 85 and 86:
Page 87 and 88:
Page 89 and 90:
Page 91 and 92:
Page 93 and 94:
Page 95:
III.Post-totalitarna cenzura
Page 98 and 99:
Page 100 and 101:
Page 102 and 103:
Page 105 and 106:
Slačenje literarne zgodovine:cenzu
Page 107 and 108:
Andrej Zavrl:Slačenje literarne zg
Page 109 and 110:
Page 111 and 112:
Page 113 and 114:
Page 115:
Page 118 and 119:
Page 120 and 121:
Page 122 and 123:
Page 124 and 125:
Page 126 and 127:
Page 128 and 129:
Page 130 and 131:
Page 132 and 133:
Page 134 and 135:
Page 136 and 137:
Page 138 and 139:
Page 140 and 141:
Page 142 and 143:
Page 144 and 145:
Page 146 and 147:
Page 148 and 149:
Page 150 and 151:
Obsojena pisatelja
Page 152 and 153:
Page 154 and 155:
Page 156 and 157:
O AVTORJIHSalah Salim Ali je študi
Page 158 and 159:
Breda Smolnikar, pisateljica in pre
Page 161 and 162:
Literature and Censorship, Truthand
Page 163 and 164:
Marijan Dović:Literature and Censo
Page 165 and 166:
Page 167 and 168:
Page 169 and 170:
Totalitarian and Post-totalitarianC
Page 171 and 172:
Marijan Dović:Totalitarian and Pos
Page 173 and 174:
Page 175:
Page 178 and 179:
Literature and Censorship: Who is A
Page 180 and 181:
Page 182 and 183:
Page 184 and 185:
Page 186 and 187:
Page 188 and 189:
Page 190 and 191:
Page 192 and 193:
Page 194 and 195:
Page 196 and 197:
Page 198 and 199:
Page 200 and 201:
Page 202 and 203:
II. Controversies of TotalitarianCe
Page 204 and 205:
Page 206 and 207:
Page 208 and 209:
Page 210 and 211:
Page 212 and 213: Literature and Censorship: Who is A
Page 252 and 253: III.Post-totalitarian censorship
Page 273 and 274: Untimely Rewriting: Memoryand Self-
Page 275 and 276: Peter Dunwoodie:Untimely Rewriting:
Page 283: Peter Dunwoodie:Untimely Rewriting:
Page 297 and 298: Words in FreedomSimona ŠkrabecBarc
Page 299 and 300: Simona Škrabec:Words in Freedomnow
Page 301 and 302: Simona Škrabec:Words in Freedomof
Page 303 and 304: Simona Škrabec:Words in Freedoming
Page 305 and 306: Simona Škrabec:Words in FreedomRea
Page 307 and 308: Simona Škrabec:Words in Freedomrea
Page 309: Convicted Writers
Page 312 and 313:
Page 315 and 316:
A Dream Napkin White as Snowon the
Page 317 and 318:
Breda Smolnikar:A Dream Napkin Whit
Page 319 and 320:
Louise L. Lambrichs is a French nov
show all

Literatura in cenzura - Društvo za primerjalno književnost - ZRC SAZU

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?